> How do I know that Apple is such a good citizen themselves?
A perfectly valid question. But then what's this...
> Android Phones and the Pixel isn't necessarily a bad phone.
What does that have to do with your first statement?
The OP is saying you shouldn't buy a phone from a company who's primary business is tracking you. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but you went really non-linear there.
> Unfortunately batteries are only about 80-90% efficient
Total round-trip tank-to-wheel for an average BEV is about 70% (Tesla claims slightly better, but drivers report this number is good).
That means when running on you're average 60% efficient power plant, the well-to-wheel is.7 *.6 = 42%. That compares to the average ICE car around 16 to 18%, or the average hybrid around 20 to 23%.
Simply put, BEVs have end-to-end efficiencies *including generation and distribution and all other losses* roughly double that of ICE.
> and no, solar/wind are not going to produce enough for a nation scale car fleet any time soon
The US average car lasts 11 years. If we were to replace every car in the US fleet with a BEV over that period, the rate of wind turbines being added in the US is enough to power all of them.
> As someone with a masters in mechanical engineering the 30% figure > cited for many heat based engines bothers me greatly.
So when you take the total amount of energy you deliver and divide that by the amount of energy in the fuel, and you get 30%, that bothers you greatly?
> This is only true if you have access to a sink colder than interstellar space
And THAT'S only true if you assume the only way to extract that energy is a heat engine.
And since we're talking about BEV vs ICE, that's obviously the wrong metric to use, because BEVs aren't heat engines. So when one does use tank-to-wheel comparisons of the two, a BEV is on the order of 70% efficient and an ICE averages maybe 16 to 18%. That IS an apples to apples comparison.
> Sounds like you guys are making the case for hybrids.
Speaking as someone that drives a hybrid, there's no comparison. BEVs are light years ahead and I'm going to buy one when this car dies (11 years, still going OK).
Even the best engine gets about 30% efficiency, and then we have generator, conversion and battery losses on top. In comparison, any grid-connected NG turbine built in the last 10 years is around 45% efficient, and modern ones are over 50% - TO THE WIRE. Better yet, I don't have to carry it with me, wasting energy hauling around that mass when I don't need it.
There are only two reasons to carry an ICE at this point, battery cost and charge points. Both are being addressed much more rapidly than the efficiency of ICE is improving. The last estimates I saw was that an EV drivetrain end-to-end will cost less than ICE some time in the next three years.
> and your waste heat makes for high efficiency winter heat...
Which does what for me in the 10 months of the year where I don't use heat, or the two where I do and use only maybe 15% of it?
To get 411 grams of CO2 per mile. Divide that by 1.6 to get 254.
The very best hybrids do come close to this figure. However, this figure does not take into account the rapidly changing numbers on both ICE and BEV sides. When those are considered, the BEV side is untouchable, they are falling far faster even than the spikes caused when new CAFE rules come into play.
> The usual argument for EVs is that it's easier to replace a few power stations > with something less polluting than it is to replace every car
However, every car will be replaced on a time scale MUCH shorter than every power station. The average car lasts 11 years in the US, the average coal plant is something on the order of 45 years.
That said, when a power station IS replaced, its GHG emissions plummet by far more than a new car vs one that's 11 years old. A NG turbine has half the GHG of a coal plant, whereas wind and solar of course are thousands of times better.
You also have to consider the maximum possible efficiency of an ICE engine, which is about three times worse than a motor, including all upstream losses.
The real problem with "silly laws" is that, in the past at least, they weren't.
For instance, I know there was a law in the Roman Empire that made it illegal to use someone else's plough. You had to have your own. That lasted into the middle ages in England.
I have no idea why that law exists, but I suspect it's not just "someone wanted to pork". I don't know the reason, so it seems silly. Is it really? I doubt it.
Somewhere near the first 1/3rd of the interview there is a mention of a new machine that was "totally ahead of it's time". I'd like to say he was talking about the 5000, but I'm not entirely sure.
In any event, does anyone know what this was, and what made it, as he claimed, as good as machines of today's era? Because I call BS on that by default.
And why, oh why, doesn't anyone ever mention Mindset?
> Both Windows and Office in the 95/98 days were terrible products
Compared to what?
A series of business "suites" from the likes of Corel and Novell that were literally nothing more than random products thrown together in a box?
Or the contemporary Mac OS, which was totally unstable and outdated? Or better yet, OS8 which would crash even if you just sat and looked at it long enough?
It's not that MS was particularly strong, but certainly, their competition was floundering with great gusto.
> If you're talking about "so little air that the vehicle - without a compressor > - only slowly drifts down in velocity",
Have you bothered to read a single article on the topic? Apparently not.
The compressor in this case was a series of movable doors that opened and closed as the train moved through the tunnel. It was only partially evacuated and in the case of braking the doors in front were closed at the station and the buildup of the air in front of the train brought it to a stop.
So, no, it didn't "slowly drift[s] down in velocity", it rather rapidly came to a stop in a wall of air.
> with a compressor shunting the built-up air ahead of the vehicle into > air bearings, cite an example of that from before Musk
Moving the goalposts, eh? Now it's not "partially vacuum train", it's "air bearing train with compressor". What's your next complaint, it has to have a particular paint scheme?
But that's no problem anyway, because there are so many examples they have their own classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovertrain
These used compressors at the front of the vehicle to run air bearings under (and sometimes on the sides) of the fuselage. In some cases a LIM was used for propulsion. Many of the original proposals have them running in partially evacuated tubes, and one built example runs in tubes that are not evacuated.
As both the hovercraft and the LIM are UK inventions (well, sort of), it should not be surprising that one of the better developed examples is theirs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_Hovercraft
And yet the vast majority of the world's email travels though Linux servers.
> Windows has SQL Server
1) no one cares, even die-hard MSSQL customers are moving to various open-source packages 2) SQL is the mainframe of the data world now. the vast majority of the world's data isn't in SQL anymore
> Windows has Active Directory
Which is useful only if your desktop machines are running Windows. For a world that's rapidly moving away from desktop platforms, this is a non-benefit.
> Windows has the file shares
Oh come on, that is perfectly well served by Linux.
> unless they can't find support for a product that only runs on Linux
Which is an astonishing statement all on its own. Because ten years ago, that was MS's argument against Linux, that there were apps you simply had to run and they were only on Windows. How the worm has turned.
BTW, no, I don't work on mobile, I do most of my development in VS, and I use MSSQL every day.
> I was a Newton developer, and I remember those days well. Developing for the Newton was awesome, one of my favorite platforms!
Oh gawd, really?
Say what you will about Xcode and especially IB/storyboards, but what I recall of Newton programming was a semi-interesting language wrapped in an utter hell of an IDE. It was SO SLOW! Debugging, OMG.
> So they tried something, and it didn't work out for them. What's the big deal?
So when IBM introduced the 5100 and it didn't work out, they should have gone back to the mainframes and ignored the micro market forever?
The *entire industry* is moving to mobile, and MS now has zero presence there. And unlike the IBM example, MS is not in a market with a bunch of kids running around thinking they knew how to sell things. MS is in the market with two Megalodons who are make MS's marketing efforts look childish (oh god, remember the dinosaur mask posters?!).
> You're simply wrong on the notion of it not being as essential.
You're simply wrong on the notion of it being critical. You can very easily replace all end-user Windows machines with macOS and use either iOS or Android for everything else. The essential thing is a real desktop Office, which is the only reason I don't consider Android "there" yet, and the alternatives I've seen aren't there either.
> The vast overwhelming majority of all PCs sold at retail come with Windows on them
The overwhelming majority of all *computers* do not have windows on them. By any straight-up count, Linux is the most popular OS, followed somewhat distantly by iOS, and then Windows.
> This is absolutely not abandoning consumer for enterprise
It's called Microsoft OFFICE, not Microsoft HOME BUSINESS. Where do you think all those subscriptions are? Homes? Har!
His shorts stories were better than his novels. The early novels, especially, contained far too much filler in order to stretch out what was really a novella into commercial length.
Among his short stories, I think Hinterlands is still one of the best bits of any sort of fiction I've read.
It is actually quite difficult to find good coal for a stocking stuffer. You can get a whole bag at the gas stations in Ireland, but here in Canada I honestly don't know anyone that sells it smaller than by the tonne.
You must have a strange definition of both "every" and "front".
The Bolt is a weird looking (IMHO) econobox that sells for $37000. The Tesla 3 is a stunning (IMHO) mid-range sedan that sells for $35000. The 3 has a larger interior, longer wheelbase, while having *slightly* less cargo space. The 3 eats the Bolt in performance terms, has all the hardware needed for autonomous driving, has a more high-tech interior, is much easier to buy, charges much faster and has a wider selection of stations. It comes in a model with greatly extended range. And if the production ramps *even a little*, will outproduce the Bolt by multiples.
> Personally, though, I buy my phones outright. Those contracts just aren't worth it to me.
I'm not sure what it;s like where you are, but here in Ontario the difference in price of buying unlocked vs. carrier comes to $50, which is exactly what they charge to unlock it. And as of december, unlocking will be free.
In other words, you may as well use the contract, because you're saving the cost of money over 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Does no one remember history?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer
Japanese claim they are taking over AI. US and EU panic and talk about DOOOOOM! Absolutely nothing happens.
> How do I know that Apple is such a good citizen themselves?
A perfectly valid question. But then what's this...
> Android Phones and the Pixel isn't necessarily a bad phone.
What does that have to do with your first statement?
The OP is saying you shouldn't buy a phone from a company who's primary business is tracking you. You can agree or disagree with that statement, but you went really non-linear there.
> The Pixel 2016 sold +1 million units
The 2016 iPhone 7, which everyone dismissed, sold 80 million in the same period.
> Google had an awful time meeting demand.
Then they suck. Microsoft delivered more phones in that period. MICROSOFT!
> Unfortunately batteries are only about 80-90% efficient
Total round-trip tank-to-wheel for an average BEV is about 70% (Tesla claims slightly better, but drivers report this number is good).
That means when running on you're average 60% efficient power plant, the well-to-wheel is .7 * .6 = 42%. That compares to the average ICE car around 16 to 18%, or the average hybrid around 20 to 23%.
Simply put, BEVs have end-to-end efficiencies *including generation and distribution and all other losses* roughly double that of ICE.
> and no, solar/wind are not going to produce enough for a nation scale car fleet any time soon
The US average car lasts 11 years. If we were to replace every car in the US fleet with a BEV over that period, the rate of wind turbines being added in the US is enough to power all of them.
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/future-grid-energy-in-the-not-so-distance/
And yes, the grid is already capable of supporting them all, with some spot upgrades at the neighbourhood level to replace older transformers.
> As someone with a masters in mechanical engineering the 30% figure
> cited for many heat based engines bothers me greatly.
So when you take the total amount of energy you deliver and divide that by the amount of energy in the fuel, and you get 30%, that bothers you greatly?
> This is only true if you have access to a sink colder than interstellar space
And THAT'S only true if you assume the only way to extract that energy is a heat engine.
And since we're talking about BEV vs ICE, that's obviously the wrong metric to use, because BEVs aren't heat engines. So when one does use tank-to-wheel comparisons of the two, a BEV is on the order of 70% efficient and an ICE averages maybe 16 to 18%. That IS an apples to apples comparison.
> Sounds like you guys are making the case for hybrids.
Speaking as someone that drives a hybrid, there's no comparison. BEVs are light years ahead and I'm going to buy one when this car dies (11 years, still going OK).
Even the best engine gets about 30% efficiency, and then we have generator, conversion and battery losses on top. In comparison, any grid-connected NG turbine built in the last 10 years is around 45% efficient, and modern ones are over 50% - TO THE WIRE. Better yet, I don't have to carry it with me, wasting energy hauling around that mass when I don't need it.
There are only two reasons to carry an ICE at this point, battery cost and charge points. Both are being addressed much more rapidly than the efficiency of ICE is improving. The last estimates I saw was that an EV drivetrain end-to-end will cost less than ICE some time in the next three years.
> and your waste heat makes for high efficiency winter heat...
Which does what for me in the 10 months of the year where I don't use heat, or the two where I do and use only maybe 15% of it?
> Then the 650gCO2/kWh translate to 130gCO2/km in terms of CO2 emission.
> Which is about the same a fairly economical IC car produces
Average emissions in the US are ~250 gco2/km, not 130. See:
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0
To get 411 grams of CO2 per mile. Divide that by 1.6 to get 254.
The very best hybrids do come close to this figure. However, this figure does not take into account the rapidly changing numbers on both ICE and BEV sides. When those are considered, the BEV side is untouchable, they are falling far faster even than the spikes caused when new CAFE rules come into play.
> The usual argument for EVs is that it's easier to replace a few power stations
> with something less polluting than it is to replace every car
However, every car will be replaced on a time scale MUCH shorter than every power station. The average car lasts 11 years in the US, the average coal plant is something on the order of 45 years.
That said, when a power station IS replaced, its GHG emissions plummet by far more than a new car vs one that's 11 years old. A NG turbine has half the GHG of a coal plant, whereas wind and solar of course are thousands of times better.
You also have to consider the maximum possible efficiency of an ICE engine, which is about three times worse than a motor, including all upstream losses.
So generally, EV for the (massive) win:
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/
> Science says "there was a point in time
Nope, you're already wrong, On that last word there. It's called space*time* for a reason.
> Temperatures in the eastern half of the country have been as much as 15 degrees above normal
Holy FS! I thought it was just me. We needed heat and aircon on the same day earlier this month.
> Yes, there's a lot of silly laws on the books
The real problem with "silly laws" is that, in the past at least, they weren't.
For instance, I know there was a law in the Roman Empire that made it illegal to use someone else's plough. You had to have your own. That lasted into the middle ages in England.
I have no idea why that law exists, but I suspect it's not just "someone wanted to pork". I don't know the reason, so it seems silly. Is it really? I doubt it.
Ha! +5 mod points to the OP.
Somewhere near the first 1/3rd of the interview there is a mention of a new machine that was "totally ahead of it's time". I'd like to say he was talking about the 5000, but I'm not entirely sure.
In any event, does anyone know what this was, and what made it, as he claimed, as good as machines of today's era? Because I call BS on that by default.
And why, oh why, doesn't anyone ever mention Mindset?
> Both Windows and Office in the 95/98 days were terrible products
Compared to what?
A series of business "suites" from the likes of Corel and Novell that were literally nothing more than random products thrown together in a box?
Or the contemporary Mac OS, which was totally unstable and outdated? Or better yet, OS8 which would crash even if you just sat and looked at it long enough?
It's not that MS was particularly strong, but certainly, their competition was floundering with great gusto.
> which according to his son was over an argument with Irving Gould over Gould using the company as his personal piggy bank
I had heard it was about Tramiel stuffing the channel and a looming crisis over the resulting inventory backlash.
> If you're talking about "so little air that the vehicle - without a compressor
> - only slowly drifts down in velocity",
Have you bothered to read a single article on the topic? Apparently not.
The compressor in this case was a series of movable doors that opened and closed as the train moved through the tunnel. It was only partially evacuated and in the case of braking the doors in front were closed at the station and the buildup of the air in front of the train brought it to a stop.
So, no, it didn't "slowly drift[s] down in velocity", it rather rapidly came to a stop in a wall of air.
> with a compressor shunting the built-up air ahead of the vehicle into
> air bearings, cite an example of that from before Musk
Moving the goalposts, eh? Now it's not "partially vacuum train", it's "air bearing train with compressor". What's your next complaint, it has to have a particular paint scheme?
But that's no problem anyway, because there are so many examples they have their own classification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovertrain
These used compressors at the front of the vehicle to run air bearings under (and sometimes on the sides) of the fuselage. In some cases a LIM was used for propulsion. Many of the original proposals have them running in partially evacuated tubes, and one built example runs in tubes that are not evacuated.
As both the hovercraft and the LIM are UK inventions (well, sort of), it should not be surprising that one of the better developed examples is theirs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_Hovercraft
> ) is not a vactrain, and more to the point, would not work in a vacuum
Neither did the vactrain. In fact, it used air in the tube as its braking system.
> Windows has Exchange
And yet the vast majority of the world's email travels though Linux servers.
> Windows has SQL Server
1) no one cares, even die-hard MSSQL customers are moving to various open-source packages
2) SQL is the mainframe of the data world now. the vast majority of the world's data isn't in SQL anymore
> Windows has Active Directory
Which is useful only if your desktop machines are running Windows. For a world that's rapidly moving away from desktop platforms, this is a non-benefit.
> Windows has the file shares
Oh come on, that is perfectly well served by Linux.
> unless they can't find support for a product that only runs on Linux
Which is an astonishing statement all on its own. Because ten years ago, that was MS's argument against Linux, that there were apps you simply had to run and they were only on Windows. How the worm has turned.
BTW, no, I don't work on mobile, I do most of my development in VS, and I use MSSQL every day.
> I was a Newton developer, and I remember those days well. Developing for the Newton was awesome, one of my favorite platforms!
Oh gawd, really?
Say what you will about Xcode and especially IB/storyboards, but what I recall of Newton programming was a semi-interesting language wrapped in an utter hell of an IDE. It was SO SLOW! Debugging, OMG.
> So they tried something, and it didn't work out for them. What's the big deal?
So when IBM introduced the 5100 and it didn't work out, they should have gone back to the mainframes and ignored the micro market forever?
The *entire industry* is moving to mobile, and MS now has zero presence there. And unlike the IBM example, MS is not in a market with a bunch of kids running around thinking they knew how to sell things. MS is in the market with two Megalodons who are make MS's marketing efforts look childish (oh god, remember the dinosaur mask posters?!).
> You're simply wrong on the notion of it not being as essential.
You're simply wrong on the notion of it being critical. You can very easily replace all end-user Windows machines with macOS and use either iOS or Android for everything else. The essential thing is a real desktop Office, which is the only reason I don't consider Android "there" yet, and the alternatives I've seen aren't there either.
> The vast overwhelming majority of all PCs sold at retail come with Windows on them
The overwhelming majority of all *computers* do not have windows on them. By any straight-up count, Linux is the most popular OS, followed somewhat distantly by iOS, and then Windows.
> This is absolutely not abandoning consumer for enterprise
It's called Microsoft OFFICE, not Microsoft HOME BUSINESS. Where do you think all those subscriptions are? Homes? Har!
His shorts stories were better than his novels. The early novels, especially, contained far too much filler in order to stretch out what was really a novella into commercial length.
Among his short stories, I think Hinterlands is still one of the best bits of any sort of fiction I've read.
Your kids play outside?
It is actually quite difficult to find good coal for a stocking stuffer. You can get a whole bag at the gas stations in Ireland, but here in Canada I honestly don't know anyone that sells it smaller than by the tonne.
> GM is beating them on every front.
You must have a strange definition of both "every" and "front".
The Bolt is a weird looking (IMHO) econobox that sells for $37000. The Tesla 3 is a stunning (IMHO) mid-range sedan that sells for $35000. The 3 has a larger interior, longer wheelbase, while having *slightly* less cargo space. The 3 eats the Bolt in performance terms, has all the hardware needed for autonomous driving, has a more high-tech interior, is much easier to buy, charges much faster and has a wider selection of stations. It comes in a model with greatly extended range. And if the production ramps *even a little*, will outproduce the Bolt by multiples.
So yeah, "every front" seems a bit strange.
> Personally, though, I buy my phones outright. Those contracts just aren't worth it to me.
I'm not sure what it;s like where you are, but here in Ontario the difference in price of buying unlocked vs. carrier comes to $50, which is exactly what they charge to unlock it. And as of december, unlocking will be free.
In other words, you may as well use the contract, because you're saving the cost of money over 2 years.