On the contrary; WinRAR sucks because it isn't open source
That's a bold statement because it goes either way. There are open source products that are better just because they are free and some are better because they simply are better. There are commercial products out there that outweigh open source products just because they have large teams with the right expertise and money to keep it going forward.
7Zip, the actual open source competitor to WinRAR, is much better
7Zip is better in many ways. Lightweight is the one major thing it has on WinRAR.
7Zip would have the same issues if it offered a self extracting option.
Only 8 years ago EVs had a max range of about 80 miles. Charging is going to be a problem for a long time. The alternative to charging is swapping. There have been other suggestions such as discount car rentals for those who want to take a long trip. More than 95% of people have a daily commute of less than 100 miles per day. Considering that's less than a 2 hour charging time at home it's not bad at all.
I've read and heard policy makers making suggestions that locking down Internet borders in similar fashion to China. Doing this would be like taking 10 steps back from globalization. I would argue that it's a bad thing while others would encourage it.
I'm not a cross continent internet connectivity expert but I would assume traffic source can easily be identified. If a country is known for causing havoc, their connectivity should be limited to none or at least regulated. I know this doesn't stop all perpetrators but it complicates the process hence removing some of the culprits.
We host an IIS server and we have put "honey pots" that hackers have been hitting regularly. 90% of the traffic comes from China and Iran with the other 10% being local (which could be proxies for all we know)
I agree. Many people here aren't here to discuss the topic but instead force their way of thinking the same way some politicians do. People with strong beliefs aren't open to new options and that is why we have real issues that aren't going away. Hopefully people like us can change the world for the better.
170 miles takes as little as 2 hours to drive, depending on where you're at. Then 30 min to charge, not counting stop/start time.
That's correct. It doesn't replace both vehicle but at the right price definitely gets you to replace 1 of the 2.
I think it was Tesla that showed a 2 minute battery swapping system. That's a more viable option for extending range if it works properly and is costed properly. Otherwise we are back to square 1.
It would bring adoption close to 50%, for families with 2 or more vehicles... but that leaves out all the single vehicle households or the households who have a need for 2 longer range vehicles, or who have 3 or more vehicles in the house.
GM had suggested providing a discount system for car rentals for EV owners so they could easily arrange a car swap should they require long range. I personally don't drive over 100 miles per day anymore so something like that would make sense for a guy like me.
EVs might be 10% of new vehicle sales in 30 years
It just takes a good product at a good price to easily shift it from 10% to 30%+. Technology advancements will dictate that.
That will, to some extent, take a generation shift to overcome
I think people that are over 50 are less prone to buying EVs but I believe the current generation (30-40) is very much interested in this tech. At least that's the feeling I get from talking EVs with friends and family.
For the most part we appear to have the same view of EVs and their future.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile
Look at this link about charging Tesla Roadster: http://my.teslamotors.com/road... The new Tesla's have built-in charging stations that run on 110 and 240. The 110v will charge about 5 miles per hour and the 240v will do about 32 miles/hr. If EVs pickup within the next 10 years the infrastructure will change quickly as a result of demand. At this point it's all speculation but it's also not far fetched.
So if most families get an EV within 30 years we have close to 50% EV adoption. By then I would assume cost would be lower and options not as limited.
At some point, we'll likely swap out one of our cars for an EV
Absolutely. The only thing is the price of the EV makes it that (EV + energy savings) (Car + cost of fuel + Maintenance) so what motivates most to do it unless you are making a conscious decision to help the world at a superior cost?
Will they totally replace gas cars? Not for a long time
Define long time. If you answer 15 years I'll agree that EVs won't have taken over yet. If you say 30 years, I'll answer that you're probably wrong. In 30 years EVs will probably account for over 50% of cars (Trucks and heavy duty applications are different IMO). Currently EVs (includes Hybrids) for 3.5% of vehicles.
There is an argument against my way of thinking. The gas prices do not help motivate consumers to go EV. On the flip side, regulations are pushing companies towards EVs. Self driving cars which to date point to EVs may be the added perk required to convince many.
Tesla. Electric motors can make the automobile simpler and cheaper by replacing the maze of mechanics that IC involves
Yes, at the end of the day EVs will be cheaper to make. Tesla has yet to yield a profit due to it's high cost of R&D. This will obviously go away with time.
low-end electric cars out there that are designed for the urban commuter market, adoption is being held up by the lack of charging stations
Low end electric cars are still close to double the cost of their equivalent combustion equivalent. As for charging stations they aren't a problem for most because they can charge at home between daily commutes. Even the Tesla owners I know have 3 vehicles but say they could get away with 2 by planning a little better.
The whole reason that electric in the US has an upper-class image is that right now, only wealthier neighborhoods have charging stations
That's not true. The reason Tesla targeted the wealthy is because they knew they could afford to take a risk on new technology while enjoying the look and feel of high end luxury cars.
Electric cars will get cheap long before it becomes practical to drive them everywhere.
Depends what you mean by practical? Currently most EVs are perfectly fine for 99% of peoples driving.
The issue is that people don't want to pay more for the option that will give less. I can buy a car that gives me more cargo space, allows me to tow and has more range and my cost of purchase + maintenance + fuel won't exceed the cost of a decent EV until the car is 10 years old.
Add to this the uncertainty of new technology and you've got a car that is difficult to sell.
With Tesla offering a more affordable vehicle in the coming years and Apple possibly joining the fight in 2019, I think the future of EV is very promising.
I agree with everything you said. Engineers are sworn to follows a engineering ethics. If they are going to break this they need to cover their asses. I'm assuming you have at least 15 years work experience in a corporate setting. I say this because younger workers are both naïve and eager to please.
Personally it took me about 10 years of corporate experience to take the stance that "everyone is out there for themselves". I know not every single employee is out to screw you but you have to assume they are otherwise you get pinched pretty hard when you're wrong.
Then what's the point of putting regulations for corporations for them to be overruled by corporations themselves?
It's irrelevant if there's an industry that pollutes more than another because we always grab the low hanging fruit first. When these regulations are put in place it's usually for many reasons. 1. It can be reached with a reasonable amount of cost while promoting the economy 2. Minimal adverse effect or in many cases benefits 3. It solves a problem
In the case of the auto industry, regulations in late 70s forced auto makers to be innovative. The result is cars that are twice as efficient and more powerful.
Want to talk about regulations in HVAC. I can tell you about how the continued implementation of striker regulations has allowed the industry to strive, improve it's product offering and provide better efficiencies for the heating and cooling of buildings all around North America.
Government regulations are the only mean the little guys have to avoid corporations from shitting all over us.
Would you consider a nation that spies on it's entire population oppressive?
Yes and that's been covered so many times here and in the media. People have spoken out and things are changing for the better (we hope). They know we are watching them so they'll either more careful or will adjust in favor of the public. What people expect now is transparency at almost all levels of government. It will take time but expect things to change UNLESS people stop caring about these issues.
In my opinion the inability to securely communicate is as much of a suppression of free speech as direct suppression.
The first amendment doesn't cover this black and white so it's still left for interpretation in courts. There have been cases where encryption was simply considered FUNCTION and not EXPRESSION.
There are a lot of people that are educated and work hard that don't become wealthy. Success comes to those that work hard, persist but also get some luck. By luck I mean being born in the right place, with the right parents and along the way meeting the right people and making the right decisions (which aren't always obvious at the time they were made).
I'm in my 30s and I have a net worth of 600k. I consider myself fortunate to be in this position as most in my age group have a negative net worth. I met the right people at the right time in my life and combined with my efforts was able to turn it into what I have today.
Tesla entered a market that was perceived by their competitors to be saturated.
Competitors didn't see that market as saturated. Instead, they didn't see a potential for profit which if you look at the state of Tesla, sound like they may have been right FOR NOW. http://qz.com/207249/tesla-is-...
The iPod and iPhone also entered markets that were perceived to be saturated.
That's not what most companies though. The smart phone market in 2004 was expected to grow by 300%. This is marketing information that companies like Rogers Communication were basing their development decisions on.
In addition the smart phone market was only a few year old. You can't compare it with a 80+ year old industry.
Don't take me wrong, I'm a strong believer that Apple can do it and it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
I was thinking the same thing when I read the article.
I think they have the ability to make this happen but what will make them different?
Lower Price? Apple isn't know for undercutting the competition. Apple will want to include as many features to keep the number of skus to a minimum. In addition, existing car makers are already milking pennies out of their suppliers so beating them on the price tag will be difficult.
Features? Yes. They will be feature rich
Reliability? Time will tell.
The big difference between mobile devices and cars is that cars aren't replaced every 2 - 3 years and they require service by an expert. I'm sure they've though of all that and I'm very anxious to find out what creative solutions they have come up with to overcome these challenges.
I don't like using Tesla in this comparison. Tesla went for a very small segment of a niche market. They did so by making the car appealing to the more fortunate.
Do we really think Apple is going for the.01% of the market? I doubt it. I believe they are going for the Corolla, Dart and Elantra market. Otherwise why bother?
Don't you hate those haters who can't be impartial?
Of course all platforms have holes at one point in time. No need to invent some or pray for one just because one's platform of choice is inferior or appears inferior to Apple's or any other for that matter.
For one, I mostly work in the MS world because that's what I specialized in. Today it's rewarding but I have no trouble pointing out it's weaknesses and other OSs strengths. That's what good tech people do. They advise the best tech for the job.
Websites maybe, web applications are a different story. Problem is that businesses make heavy use of web applications and data lists can grow out of control quickly if you include the formatting required to make it look right. One could say that these web application have bad data presentation strategies and I would argue that you'd probably be right in many cases. Unfortunately not all problems can be solved with forced filters and paging.
Take/. for example. The HTML alone of this page (with very few comments at this point) is 200KB. If you add up the CSS and JS you are well above 1MB. Data alone would probably take only 100KB but data that's hard to decipher through is not fun data hence the overhead.
Compression is a no brainer if used properly. Bandwidth is limited and so is processing power. Just a matter of deciding which one is more important at any given time.
It would appear their Thinkpad aren't affected (not sure if I read that correctly). If true that provides some relief since I've been buying nothing but Lenovo laptops as I found their build quality to be superior. On a side note, we RE-IMAGE all laptops with our standard corporate setup so this is more or less an issue.
My question to companies that do this is: WHY? Is there not enough money in the sales of the hardware?
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary; WinRAR sucks because it isn't open source
That's a bold statement because it goes either way. There are open source products that are better just because they are free and some are better because they simply are better. There are commercial products out there that outweigh open source products just because they have large teams with the right expertise and money to keep it going forward.
7Zip, the actual open source competitor to WinRAR, is much better
7Zip is better in many ways. Lightweight is the one major thing it has on WinRAR.
7Zip would have the same issues if it offered a self extracting option.
Only 8 years ago EVs had a max range of about 80 miles. Charging is going to be a problem for a long time. The alternative to charging is swapping. There have been other suggestions such as discount car rentals for those who want to take a long trip. More than 95% of people have a daily commute of less than 100 miles per day. Considering that's less than a 2 hour charging time at home it's not bad at all.
Let their current target market pay for the R&D and then we can all enjoy the technology at an affordable price.
Tesla has not seen a profit yet so it's more than acceptable for them to let the rich pay for the R&D.
Best cost model for this. This same cost model was applied to the original Model T.
Sounds like the Mr. Robot conspiracy.
I've read and heard policy makers making suggestions that locking down Internet borders in similar fashion to China. Doing this would be like taking 10 steps back from globalization. I would argue that it's a bad thing while others would encourage it.
I'm not a cross continent internet connectivity expert but I would assume traffic source can easily be identified. If a country is known for causing havoc, their connectivity should be limited to none or at least regulated. I know this doesn't stop all perpetrators but it complicates the process hence removing some of the culprits.
We host an IIS server and we have put "honey pots" that hackers have been hitting regularly. 90% of the traffic comes from China and Iran with the other 10% being local (which could be proxies for all we know)
I agree. Many people here aren't here to discuss the topic but instead force their way of thinking the same way some politicians do. People with strong beliefs aren't open to new options and that is why we have real issues that aren't going away. Hopefully people like us can change the world for the better.
170 miles takes as little as 2 hours to drive, depending on where you're at. Then 30 min to charge, not counting stop/start time.
That's correct. It doesn't replace both vehicle but at the right price definitely gets you to replace 1 of the 2.
I think it was Tesla that showed a 2 minute battery swapping system. That's a more viable option for extending range if it works properly and is costed properly. Otherwise we are back to square 1.
It would bring adoption close to 50%, for families with 2 or more vehicles... but that leaves out all the single vehicle households or the households who have a need for 2 longer range vehicles, or who have 3 or more vehicles in the house.
GM had suggested providing a discount system for car rentals for EV owners so they could easily arrange a car swap should they require long range. I personally don't drive over 100 miles per day anymore so something like that would make sense for a guy like me.
EVs might be 10% of new vehicle sales in 30 years
It just takes a good product at a good price to easily shift it from 10% to 30%+. Technology advancements will dictate that.
That will, to some extent, take a generation shift to overcome
I think people that are over 50 are less prone to buying EVs but I believe the current generation (30-40) is very much interested in this tech. At least that's the feeling I get from talking EVs with friends and family.
For the most part we appear to have the same view of EVs and their future.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile
Look at this link about charging Tesla Roadster: http://my.teslamotors.com/road...
The new Tesla's have built-in charging stations that run on 110 and 240. The 110v will charge about 5 miles per hour and the 240v will do about 32 miles/hr. If EVs pickup within the next 10 years the infrastructure will change quickly as a result of demand. At this point it's all speculation but it's also not far fetched.
So if most families get an EV within 30 years we have close to 50% EV adoption. By then I would assume cost would be lower and options not as limited.
At some point, we'll likely swap out one of our cars for an EV
Absolutely. The only thing is the price of the EV makes it that (EV + energy savings) (Car + cost of fuel + Maintenance) so what motivates most to do it unless you are making a conscious decision to help the world at a superior cost?
Will they totally replace gas cars? Not for a long time
Define long time. If you answer 15 years I'll agree that EVs won't have taken over yet. If you say 30 years, I'll answer that you're probably wrong. In 30 years EVs will probably account for over 50% of cars (Trucks and heavy duty applications are different IMO). Currently EVs (includes Hybrids) for 3.5% of vehicles.
There is an argument against my way of thinking. The gas prices do not help motivate consumers to go EV. On the flip side, regulations are pushing companies towards EVs. Self driving cars which to date point to EVs may be the added perk required to convince many.
Tesla. Electric motors can make the automobile simpler and cheaper by replacing the maze of mechanics that IC involves
Yes, at the end of the day EVs will be cheaper to make. Tesla has yet to yield a profit due to it's high cost of R&D. This will obviously go away with time.
low-end electric cars out there that are designed for the urban commuter market, adoption is being held up by the lack of charging stations
Low end electric cars are still close to double the cost of their equivalent combustion equivalent. As for charging stations they aren't a problem for most because they can charge at home between daily commutes. Even the Tesla owners I know have 3 vehicles but say they could get away with 2 by planning a little better.
The whole reason that electric in the US has an upper-class image is that right now, only wealthier neighborhoods have charging stations
That's not true. The reason Tesla targeted the wealthy is because they knew they could afford to take a risk on new technology while enjoying the look and feel of high end luxury cars.
Electric cars will get cheap long before it becomes practical to drive them everywhere.
Depends what you mean by practical? Currently most EVs are perfectly fine for 99% of peoples driving.
The issue is that people don't want to pay more for the option that will give less. I can buy a car that gives me more cargo space, allows me to tow and has more range and my cost of purchase + maintenance + fuel won't exceed the cost of a decent EV until the car is 10 years old.
Add to this the uncertainty of new technology and you've got a car that is difficult to sell.
With Tesla offering a more affordable vehicle in the coming years and Apple possibly joining the fight in 2019, I think the future of EV is very promising.
My 2 cents.
They are. LED lights are still working on the same principle as fluorescent lights which we know is old as most of us on here.
I agree with everything you said. Engineers are sworn to follows a engineering ethics. If they are going to break this they need to cover their asses. I'm assuming you have at least 15 years work experience in a corporate setting. I say this because younger workers are both naïve and eager to please.
Personally it took me about 10 years of corporate experience to take the stance that "everyone is out there for themselves". I know not every single employee is out to screw you but you have to assume they are otherwise you get pinched pretty hard when you're wrong.
Then what's the point of putting regulations for corporations for them to be overruled by corporations themselves?
It's irrelevant if there's an industry that pollutes more than another because we always grab the low hanging fruit first. When these regulations are put in place it's usually for many reasons.
1. It can be reached with a reasonable amount of cost while promoting the economy
2. Minimal adverse effect or in many cases benefits
3. It solves a problem
In the case of the auto industry, regulations in late 70s forced auto makers to be innovative. The result is cars that are twice as efficient and more powerful.
Want to talk about regulations in HVAC. I can tell you about how the continued implementation of striker regulations has allowed the industry to strive, improve it's product offering and provide better efficiencies for the heating and cooling of buildings all around North America.
Government regulations are the only mean the little guys have to avoid corporations from shitting all over us.
Would you consider a nation that spies on it's entire population oppressive?
Yes and that's been covered so many times here and in the media. People have spoken out and things are changing for the better (we hope). They know we are watching them so they'll either more careful or will adjust in favor of the public. What people expect now is transparency at almost all levels of government. It will take time but expect things to change UNLESS people stop caring about these issues.
In my opinion the inability to securely communicate is as much of a suppression of free speech as direct suppression.
The first amendment doesn't cover this black and white so it's still left for interpretation in courts. There have been cases where encryption was simply considered FUNCTION and not EXPRESSION.
do you think that wealth is like some sort of ginormous lottery
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Look at number 2: Bringing some good thing not foreseen as certain
There are a lot of people that are educated and work hard that don't become wealthy. Success comes to those that work hard, persist but also get some luck. By luck I mean being born in the right place, with the right parents and along the way meeting the right people and making the right decisions (which aren't always obvious at the time they were made).
I'm in my 30s and I have a net worth of 600k. I consider myself fortunate to be in this position as most in my age group have a negative net worth. I met the right people at the right time in my life and combined with my efforts was able to turn it into what I have today.
Good to know. I checked and ours don't have them because of the corporate image we slap on it.
Tesla entered a market that was perceived by their competitors to be saturated.
Competitors didn't see that market as saturated. Instead, they didn't see a potential for profit which if you look at the state of Tesla, sound like they may have been right FOR NOW.
http://qz.com/207249/tesla-is-...
The iPod and iPhone also entered markets that were perceived to be saturated.
That's not what most companies though. The smart phone market in 2004 was expected to grow by 300%. This is marketing information that companies like Rogers Communication were basing their development decisions on.
In addition the smart phone market was only a few year old. You can't compare it with a 80+ year old industry.
Don't take me wrong, I'm a strong believer that Apple can do it and it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
I was thinking the same thing when I read the article.
I think they have the ability to make this happen but what will make them different?
Lower Price?
Apple isn't know for undercutting the competition. Apple will want to include as many features to keep the number of skus to a minimum. In addition, existing car makers are already milking pennies out of their suppliers so beating them on the price tag will be difficult.
Features?
Yes. They will be feature rich
Reliability?
Time will tell.
The big difference between mobile devices and cars is that cars aren't replaced every 2 - 3 years and they require service by an expert. I'm sure they've though of all that and I'm very anxious to find out what creative solutions they have come up with to overcome these challenges.
I don't like using Tesla in this comparison. Tesla went for a very small segment of a niche market. They did so by making the car appealing to the more fortunate.
Do we really think Apple is going for the .01% of the market? I doubt it. I believe they are going for the Corolla, Dart and Elantra market. Otherwise why bother?
Just my 2 cents.
Don't you hate those haters who can't be impartial?
Of course all platforms have holes at one point in time. No need to invent some or pray for one just because one's platform of choice is inferior or appears inferior to Apple's or any other for that matter.
For one, I mostly work in the MS world because that's what I specialized in. Today it's rewarding but I have no trouble pointing out it's weaknesses and other OSs strengths. That's what good tech people do. They advise the best tech for the job.
Websites maybe, web applications are a different story. Problem is that businesses make heavy use of web applications and data lists can grow out of control quickly if you include the formatting required to make it look right. One could say that these web application have bad data presentation strategies and I would argue that you'd probably be right in many cases. Unfortunately not all problems can be solved with forced filters and paging.
Take /. for example. The HTML alone of this page (with very few comments at this point) is 200KB. If you add up the CSS and JS you are well above 1MB. Data alone would probably take only 100KB but data that's hard to decipher through is not fun data hence the overhead.
Compression is a no brainer if used properly. Bandwidth is limited and so is processing power. Just a matter of deciding which one is more important at any given time.
There C is there in square brackets. Not sure why...
It would appear their Thinkpad aren't affected (not sure if I read that correctly). If true that provides some relief since I've been buying nothing but Lenovo laptops as I found their build quality to be superior. On a side note, we RE-IMAGE all laptops with our standard corporate setup so this is more or less an issue.
My question to companies that do this is: WHY? Is there not enough money in the sales of the hardware?