I was thinking roughly along the same lines you were - if the car flipped, it was a ditch endo, in which case it's somewhat terrifying failure mode: the front of the car basically looks like it disintegrated. Look at the rear trunk crumple area (suggestive of an endo flip) - not much damage there, at all, but suggesting it "rolled forward" onto the trunk while rolling. The distance traveled, and damage to the vehicle, all suggests an endo flip - I'd guess single-vehicle involved based on the damage, after going into the culvert at high speeds, bottoming out, catching the nose of the vehicle, and causing it to flip. It really didn't get too far into that field, but it was definitely not moving after the flip, as evidenced by how deep it is into the sod, and the absence of any tire tracks behind it. It flew to the position it was in.
Really disheartening how the front end literally ripped apart. Not what I'd consider a 'safe' crumple zone at all...
I think the point here isn't that they're using it and not providing anything back, it's that they're using 'open' technologies without improving them, and getting insane market evaluations for what amounts to marketing bullshit.
It'd like be re-theming RedHat and selling it with a Windows-like or MacOS-like theme, saying it's "Windows and Mac compatible Linux" or some such.
Look at the pictures - do you see 'crumple zones' or do you see explosive deconstruction of a vehicle?
Here's a clue: aluminum has a much lower shear point than steel. Most vehicles are still constructed of steel.
The reason why the Tesla does so much better than most cars today is because most cars no longer have a 'frame' - this has been compromised for weight savings, instead you get a folded, tucked, and extruded steel underbody of variable thickness.
By switching to aluminum, and using a rigid subframe, they are able to use a thicker frame and come out ahead on the weight versus a steel subframed vehicle without compromising much. You'll see the same thing when comparing a Tesla to a subframed truck, really - or for instance, the F-150 Raptor. Granted, the Tesla has what appears to be a remarkably good subframe (similar to what people might weld up for off-road buggies), but it isn't anything miraclulous or all that significant. Arguably, it's going to fare notably worse than some I-beam constructed vehicles... from almost 40 years ago.
Everyone's all "I know how to make this better so the state gets its fair share!"
And I'm over here thinking, what entitles the state to anything whatsoever in this transaction? And furthermore, how have they not already gotten their cut via:
Road use taxes Federal subsidies Income tax (of people transporting and buying) Sales tax (of items needed to transport goods)
And probably a dozen more. Meanwhile, that's yet another sliver out of the piece of pie I'm left with, from the pie I made myself, after paying multiple taxes on my money. All this does is increase cost for everyone, causing inflation and decreasing system efficiency.
Its fucking astounding how many people who work with computers can't see that government works almost exactly like malware - exactly.
Not really hypocritical. Pretty much the same as in most states with minor populations.
State level politicians are democrats, but act more like republicans culturally. Then they send out rent seekers to Washington to get them a good deal on the farm bill. In pretty much every way they've got their hands out looking for someone else's money.
Not sure which laptops you've bought or how they've dropped, but apparently you've not worked on others' stuff much - people break shit in some really horrible ways. Cracks in the case around the display, particularly near the hinge, are notably problematic, as are around the keyboard. It doesn't take much of a crack for things to start not working properly.
Systematic review is very important; however, in most cases, the system used to review is not complex enough to effectively qualify what's being reviewed.
It's like any system used to summarize data: fundamentally you're going to get a flawed diagnosis, because it's summarized. Unless you're dealing with a huge amount of data, and the analysis thereof, the answer is almost always "it depends".
And then there is the 'bias review' introduced in a lot of these benchmark tools. It's why open source benchmark methodology has arisen over the years for desktops, by and large.
It wasn't long ago when many of the popular benchmark systems biased against AMD, versus Intel, or one GPU over another. There was also no way you could do anything about it - the Intel C compiler at one point would "do shit compilation" when a non-Intel CPU was detected.
I honestly like the way Russia does it. Have an idea? Start a political party. Get enough people behind the idea, the party gets a seat. Get enough seats and 10 years later you've got a burgeoning craft brewing industry.
In 1900 you were lucky to reach 50, my dad died at age 84 and my mom still goes bowling twice a week at age 88. Her brother is in his late nineties. That was almost unheard of a century ago.
Not true. More people died in childhood than today, or child birth, but barring those two things, people lived healthily to a similar age as they do today - 60, 70, 80. It's how things like the oldest Civil War veteran living to be 106 happens.
Personally, the fact that John Ringo isn't on the short list pretty much says it all, to me. I don't know anyone who's into SF/fantasy who doesn't like his work.
This same cycle has happened with many a lowly tech company; it's a fine line that google has been treading, but it's bound to happen with some of their services:
Step 1: Create a product which has massive social appeal, operate in the red and make up for it in volume Step 2: IPO Step 3: Get massive speculative investment Step 4: Never turn a profit off your actual vehicle, merely use it as an avenue for... Step 5: Ad impression generation Step 6: Slow exodus of viewers Step 7: Increase ads to make up for exodus Step 8: Competitors step in to fill vacuum Step 9: Viable competitor presents itself, starts consuming market share Step 10: Eventual collapse of initial product, go to Step 1 for new competitor's product.
I must be getting old. I read the headline and think, "Yep, we've seen this before. Next, they'll be pushing secondary education again. And shortly after that, they'll be requesting more H1B visas - you know, like has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 20 years."
Do you know what the best way is to fuck up a supply based economy? Involve the government.
Applying the same "logical" thought process, we could do more good by keeping all of our biological waste inside the house instead of dumping it into the sewers...
Interesting enough, you'd have to strip mine the entire earth to get at all of that lithium, which is not (as much) of the case with lead: unlike lead, lithium is not terribly concentrated, so you end up with huge pit mines where it's available in any significant concentrations.
Isn't google great? It allows so many things, like expanding ones understanding of the existence we live in! (For your future reference, this took like, 5 minutes to google - more time to type than actually look up.)
I can hardly fault you for not thinking about the big picture of what you propose, because that's really the issue most people face in life. They don't brush their teeth. They sleep with ugly or unintelligent women. All of these things have significant negative costs, though the initial appeal is understandable.
* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles - Pre-production: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/ - Post-production: http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/
"Using all 9.9 × 109 kg of the world's lithium reserves, we can make 4.1 billion Leafs; using all the identified lithium resources (2.55 × 1010 kg), we can make 10.6 billion Leafs."
For point of reference, there are over 1 billion vehicles in use worldwide today. If we were to switch over to solely electric vehicles today at a rate of about 100 million cars a year (not unreasonable, since we're currently making 60 million), we would have an inability to produce vehicles in roughly 10 years (or less), maximum.
>> Certainly current EVs don't cover all use cases for personal vehicles. They do, however, cover 95%+ of all usage. There's no damn reason to have a vehicle designed to carry huge loads for thousands of miles just to drive to work and the store.
By your rationale, I'll need more than one vehicle to go more than about 150 miles in one direction? Or rely upon non-existent mythical public transit before it exists? No thanks.
* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria >> Tell that to all the companies already mass producing them. They will be glad to know they can do the impossible.
They may be able to do it at a small scale, for a niche market, but that is not the same thing as supplanting the entire industrial automotive industry, is it now? See: the above cited Stanford data indicating availability of lithium.
* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium
Again, see the lithium article/math.
* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first). >> More Bullshit. The majority of electricity is provided with a combination of...
If any of this were true, why would anyone care about more 'green' power sources? You do realize that Natural Gas is a (largely, waste) byproduct of petroleum production, right? I'm not even going to bother to refute this; just learn how to use the internet.
By the way, enjoy your energy costs going up - in the interest of 'green' energy, the US government has bankrupt the largest coal producer in the country - coal, from which 33% of the US power is derived.
Shut up. Seriously. Please stop whining about companies doing things you simply don't have the knowledge or experience to comment on. The science of the topic of electric cars is quite well understood, and while electric cars have a place in the future, they are:
* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles * severely niche in terms of distance capability, payload, and overall utility. * too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria * likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium * a foolish long term move unless you like the idea of disposable vehicles * through regulation, further increasing in (all) vehicle costs well over inflationary rates as a direct result of additional regulation * completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).
-Some guy who probably doesn't give a fuck, right?
Is it really any surprise to anyone that the auto industry has been 'cheating' and 'lying' about the efficiency of their vehicles?
Look, this industry is massively, massively regulated. Look at the timeline of when the more extensive regulations came into play - about 25 years ago. Every single manufacturer has been economically pressed to make the numbers up, because the reality is that consumers will not buy new vehicles if there is a decrease in efficiency over prior-year models.
Every single year, there is a new milestone in emissions requirements which must be met - requirements which are fairly arbitrary, not real-world, and unrealistic on several fronts. In short:
* safety regulations. These add weight to the vehicle, decreasing the effective power of the engine. * emission regulation. These climb every single year, well beyond what engine efficiency is able to compensate for. The only thing keeping vehicle MPG afloat are computer controlled pre-combustion systems and substantially more advanced transmissions. * other arbitrary ecological or 'efficiency' requirements which substantially increase R&D costs and pull attention away from improving their products.
I don't have any hard figures in front of me, but it could probably be argued that by removing the emissions regulation crap on vehicles you'd be able to substantially increase MPG to a point where, while you're getting a higher PPM in pollutants per gallon, you're getting fewer per mile than current regulations allow for.
What, you mean the government using its threat of force to extract "regulatory fees" from people and companies, and largely being used as a corporate attack dog by companies against each other, due to (again) due to its regulatory monopoly which creates false markets?
Part of the problem is that the S5 is running Android 5.x, which is notably more shit than Android 4.x on the whole.
I have no idea why people like it, but it is slower and more of a resource hog on the whole, with a less useful interface. I've regretted having every single Android 5.x device I've had and wished I could roll back to 4.x - every single time.
Being able to root and install Cyanogenmod (or something else) is the #1 qualifier for me when buying a phone since I got into smartphones.
Slashdot Mirror
Steel > aluminum for sheer strength.
I was thinking roughly along the same lines you were - if the car flipped, it was a ditch endo, in which case it's somewhat terrifying failure mode: the front of the car basically looks like it disintegrated. Look at the rear trunk crumple area (suggestive of an endo flip) - not much damage there, at all, but suggesting it "rolled forward" onto the trunk while rolling. The distance traveled, and damage to the vehicle, all suggests an endo flip - I'd guess single-vehicle involved based on the damage, after going into the culvert at high speeds, bottoming out, catching the nose of the vehicle, and causing it to flip. It really didn't get too far into that field, but it was definitely not moving after the flip, as evidenced by how deep it is into the sod, and the absence of any tire tracks behind it. It flew to the position it was in.
Really disheartening how the front end literally ripped apart. Not what I'd consider a 'safe' crumple zone at all...
I'm just waiting for the Jerry Buckheimer movie with a Tesla or Prius exploding with a Star Wars remix Deathstar-style fierce electrical explosion...
I think the point here isn't that they're using it and not providing anything back, it's that they're using 'open' technologies without improving them, and getting insane market evaluations for what amounts to marketing bullshit.
It'd like be re-theming RedHat and selling it with a Windows-like or MacOS-like theme, saying it's "Windows and Mac compatible Linux" or some such.
Look at the pictures - do you see 'crumple zones' or do you see explosive deconstruction of a vehicle?
Here's a clue: aluminum has a much lower shear point than steel. Most vehicles are still constructed of steel.
The reason why the Tesla does so much better than most cars today is because most cars no longer have a 'frame' - this has been compromised for weight savings, instead you get a folded, tucked, and extruded steel underbody of variable thickness.
By switching to aluminum, and using a rigid subframe, they are able to use a thicker frame and come out ahead on the weight versus a steel subframed vehicle without compromising much. You'll see the same thing when comparing a Tesla to a subframed truck, really - or for instance, the F-150 Raptor. Granted, the Tesla has what appears to be a remarkably good subframe (similar to what people might weld up for off-road buggies), but it isn't anything miraclulous or all that significant. Arguably, it's going to fare notably worse than some I-beam constructed vehicles... from almost 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaXlbAcFqYQ
Everyone's all "I know how to make this better so the state gets its fair share!"
And I'm over here thinking, what entitles the state to anything whatsoever in this transaction? And furthermore, how have they not already gotten their cut via:
Road use taxes
Federal subsidies
Income tax (of people transporting and buying)
Sales tax (of items needed to transport goods)
And probably a dozen more. Meanwhile, that's yet another sliver out of the piece of pie I'm left with, from the pie I made myself, after paying multiple taxes on my money. All this does is increase cost for everyone, causing inflation and decreasing system efficiency.
Its fucking astounding how many people who work with computers can't see that government works almost exactly like malware - exactly.
Not really hypocritical. Pretty much the same as in most states with minor populations.
State level politicians are democrats, but act more like republicans culturally. Then they send out rent seekers to Washington to get them a good deal on the farm bill. In pretty much every way they've got their hands out looking for someone else's money.
Not really a news flash to anyone.
Most companies, not just startups, valued at a billion, aren't. There are only about 2000 companies in the world that can turn that profit.
Nah, it isn't the bubble that's damaged SF. It's the government of SF which has made it possible.
Not sure which laptops you've bought or how they've dropped, but apparently you've not worked on others' stuff much - people break shit in some really horrible ways. Cracks in the case around the display, particularly near the hinge, are notably problematic, as are around the keyboard. It doesn't take much of a crack for things to start not working properly.
Systematic review is very important; however, in most cases, the system used to review is not complex enough to effectively qualify what's being reviewed.
It's like any system used to summarize data: fundamentally you're going to get a flawed diagnosis, because it's summarized. Unless you're dealing with a huge amount of data, and the analysis thereof, the answer is almost always "it depends".
And then there is the 'bias review' introduced in a lot of these benchmark tools. It's why open source benchmark methodology has arisen over the years for desktops, by and large.
It wasn't long ago when many of the popular benchmark systems biased against AMD, versus Intel, or one GPU over another. There was also no way you could do anything about it - the Intel C compiler at one point would "do shit compilation" when a non-Intel CPU was detected.
I honestly like the way Russia does it. Have an idea? Start a political party. Get enough people behind the idea, the party gets a seat. Get enough seats and 10 years later you've got a burgeoning craft brewing industry.
Starship Troopers 3 was actually fairly similar in voice to the book...
People seem to miss the irony with which Heinlein wrote.
In 1900 you were lucky to reach 50, my dad died at age 84 and my mom still goes bowling twice a week at age 88. Her brother is in his late nineties. That was almost unheard of a century ago.
Not true. More people died in childhood than today, or child birth, but barring those two things, people lived healthily to a similar age as they do today - 60, 70, 80. It's how things like the oldest Civil War veteran living to be 106 happens.
Personally, the fact that John Ringo isn't on the short list pretty much says it all, to me. I don't know anyone who's into SF/fantasy who doesn't like his work.
This same cycle has happened with many a lowly tech company; it's a fine line that google has been treading, but it's bound to happen with some of their services:
Step 1: Create a product which has massive social appeal, operate in the red and make up for it in volume
Step 2: IPO
Step 3: Get massive speculative investment
Step 4: Never turn a profit off your actual vehicle, merely use it as an avenue for...
Step 5: Ad impression generation
Step 6: Slow exodus of viewers
Step 7: Increase ads to make up for exodus
Step 8: Competitors step in to fill vacuum
Step 9: Viable competitor presents itself, starts consuming market share
Step 10: Eventual collapse of initial product, go to Step 1 for new competitor's product.
Well said.
I must be getting old. I read the headline and think, "Yep, we've seen this before. Next, they'll be pushing secondary education again. And shortly after that, they'll be requesting more H1B visas - you know, like has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 20 years."
Do you know what the best way is to fuck up a supply based economy? Involve the government.
Applying the same "logical" thought process, we could do more good by keeping all of our biological waste inside the house instead of dumping it into the sewers...
Interesting enough, you'd have to strip mine the entire earth to get at all of that lithium, which is not (as much) of the case with lead: unlike lead, lithium is not terribly concentrated, so you end up with huge pit mines where it's available in any significant concentrations.
Isn't google great? It allows so many things, like expanding ones understanding of the existence we live in! (For your future reference, this took like, 5 minutes to google - more time to type than actually look up.)
I can hardly fault you for not thinking about the big picture of what you propose, because that's really the issue most people face in life. They don't brush their teeth. They sleep with ugly or unintelligent women. All of these things have significant negative costs, though the initial appeal is understandable.
* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles
- Pre-production: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/
- Post-production: http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/
"Using all 9.9 × 109 kg of the world's lithium reserves, we can make 4.1 billion Leafs; using all the identified lithium resources (2.55 × 1010 kg), we can make 10.6 billion Leafs."
For point of reference, there are over 1 billion vehicles in use worldwide today. If we were to switch over to solely electric vehicles today at a rate of about 100 million cars a year (not unreasonable, since we're currently making 60 million), we would have an inability to produce vehicles in roughly 10 years (or less), maximum.
>> Certainly current EVs don't cover all use cases for personal vehicles. They do, however, cover 95%+ of all usage. There's no damn reason to have a vehicle designed to carry huge loads for thousands of miles just to drive to work and the store.
By your rationale, I'll need more than one vehicle to go more than about 150 miles in one direction? Or rely upon non-existent mythical public transit before it exists? No thanks.
* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria
>> Tell that to all the companies already mass producing them. They will be glad to know they can do the impossible.
They may be able to do it at a small scale, for a niche market, but that is not the same thing as supplanting the entire industrial automotive industry, is it now? See: the above cited Stanford data indicating availability of lithium.
* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium
Again, see the lithium article/math.
* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).
>> More Bullshit. The majority of electricity is provided with a combination of...
If any of this were true, why would anyone care about more 'green' power sources? You do realize that Natural Gas is a (largely, waste) byproduct of petroleum production, right? I'm not even going to bother to refute this; just learn how to use the internet.
By the way, enjoy your energy costs going up - in the interest of 'green' energy, the US government has bankrupt the largest coal producer in the country - coal, from which 33% of the US power is derived.
Dear Irrational Greenist,
Shut up. Seriously. Please stop whining about companies doing things you simply don't have the knowledge or experience to comment on. The science of the topic of electric cars is quite well understood, and while electric cars have a place in the future, they are:
* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles
* severely niche in terms of distance capability, payload, and overall utility.
* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria
* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium
* a foolish long term move unless you like the idea of disposable vehicles
* through regulation, further increasing in (all) vehicle costs well over inflationary rates as a direct result of additional regulation
* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).
-Some guy who probably doesn't give a fuck, right?
Is it really any surprise to anyone that the auto industry has been 'cheating' and 'lying' about the efficiency of their vehicles?
Look, this industry is massively, massively regulated. Look at the timeline of when the more extensive regulations came into play - about 25 years ago. Every single manufacturer has been economically pressed to make the numbers up, because the reality is that consumers will not buy new vehicles if there is a decrease in efficiency over prior-year models.
Every single year, there is a new milestone in emissions requirements which must be met - requirements which are fairly arbitrary, not real-world, and unrealistic on several fronts. In short:
* safety regulations. These add weight to the vehicle, decreasing the effective power of the engine.
* emission regulation. These climb every single year, well beyond what engine efficiency is able to compensate for. The only thing keeping vehicle MPG afloat are computer controlled pre-combustion systems and substantially more advanced transmissions.
* other arbitrary ecological or 'efficiency' requirements which substantially increase R&D costs and pull attention away from improving their products.
I don't have any hard figures in front of me, but it could probably be argued that by removing the emissions regulation crap on vehicles you'd be able to substantially increase MPG to a point where, while you're getting a higher PPM in pollutants per gallon, you're getting fewer per mile than current regulations allow for.
Solidarity? Is that another word for government?
What, you mean the government using its threat of force to extract "regulatory fees" from people and companies, and largely being used as a corporate attack dog by companies against each other, due to (again) due to its regulatory monopoly which creates false markets?
It absolutely fucking is.
Part of the problem is that the S5 is running Android 5.x, which is notably more shit than Android 4.x on the whole.
I have no idea why people like it, but it is slower and more of a resource hog on the whole, with a less useful interface. I've regretted having every single Android 5.x device I've had and wished I could roll back to 4.x - every single time.
Being able to root and install Cyanogenmod (or something else) is the #1 qualifier for me when buying a phone since I got into smartphones.