They certainly don't have the maintenance and upkeep of the ICE since it isn't there. Transmission is dependent on the design, it can certainly be done with a transmission or differentials.
There are simply fewer moving parts in electrics than ICEs. I was talking about engines and transmissions when I said no moving parts. Obviously all 'cars' have wheels and the assorted things that make them 'move'.
Things that aren't going to exist in an electric vehicle.
My point is there are significantly fewer things that need maintenance in electric vehicles compared with ICEs. Never said electrics don't have maintenance. The battery price isn't cheap, but it's easily on par with an engine rebuild/replacement no? And it's significantly less involved to remove a battery and plug in a new one than mate engines to transmissions and such.
My point is LOTS of the parts of ICE cars simply don't exist in electric cars. Thus reducing the maintenance. Amenities simply aren't relevant because they are extras that are nice to have.
Batteries are currently expensive. Care to answer the question of why replacement engines/trans don't come with multi-year warranties?
I assure you batteries are the quite literal definition of 'plug and play'. You take a plug and, ahem, plug it in and it's done.
It 'can', but it doesn't need to have a transmission. 4 electric motors for each wheel handle that quite nicely. It's much more efficient that way to boot since they are smaller than a bigger single motor connected to a transmission.
And those 4 motors mean you don't have differentials at all since there aren't connections between the wheels.
The point is the really expensive parts of an ICE are the ones that usually need replacement. Engines, transmissions, etc. The moving parts that wear. Full electrics don't have those parts in the first place. The battery will need replacement, but it's a non-mechanical part that literally can be replaced with no issues; plug and play if you will.
Try that with a transmission and see if you get more than a 12 month warranty. New batteries might not have a massively longer warranty but given that they are still very new technology and the transmissions and engines are a century old, it begs the question of why they still can't provide a replacement product worthy of a better warranty?
This less guns leads to less death idea is not supported by the facts.
Yes it is, quite clearly. Look at most any civilized country and compare gun ownership rates to gun violence and you'll see a marked correlation and we're very high on both counts. Places without gun violence don't have a lot of guns available.
Yeah I have a friend who has a company supplied phone and they are expressly forbidden from turning off the GPS on the device - termination offense. Fully disclosed mind you but I would so be putting that thing down at 5pm and leaving it at the office. My friend enjoys the free cell service in exchange.
I believe his point is they actually train people to drive properly and as such don't need ridiculously lower speed limits to compensate for the morons on the road.
The guns issue is pretty self explanatory, less guns = more people still alive.
Not so bizarre. He ran to countries big enough to tell the US to fuck off. Putin is absolutely overjoyed at being able to stick it to the US in a way that is basically meaningless but just makes them look bad.
Thorium Nuclear - Molten Salt. Not built yet. Sure we have prototypes that have worked for a few years, but molten salts are extremely corrosive. We don't yet have the metals that can keep it self contained and sealed for a plant lifetime. It's a chemical/mechanical problem so likely not impossible but it isn't available yet. Once that's solved, I like the concept - and unlike most people against something I'm more than willing to fund it's research because it does hold promise.
Coal, fly ash spill. EXTREMELY localized and entirely preventable. This is an operational issue, not a failure issue. Much like nuclear waste is an operational issue.
Hydro-power - um, don't allow building below the dam and/or provide stable high ground shelters; hell you could even build earth works into your plan to divert any failure flow to designated routes. It's entirely preventable. there are no 'safe places' when a nuclear plant fails.
Natural gas pipelines AND plants. As I said, when coal plants and by association these fail, you can still walk the site the next day. it doesn't render the place uninhabitable.
Wind turbines - seriously? From your link - "no member of the public had ever been hurt as a result of a wind turbine accident" So um, ZERO problems.
I'm amazed you didn't put solar up there too. People like to claim that it's dangerous because it's on rooftops. As if we shouldn't have roofs on our houses because people could die putting them up there. Manufacturing of ANYTHING has dangers, but we're talking about failure conditions to the surrounding area.
You've deliberately conflated construction and maintenance issues to try and prove that 'everything' is dangerous. well of course everything is dangerous, but absolutely NOTHING has the failure issues that nuclear does.
No new, not even the safe [nuclear plants]
You do realize that Fukishima was considered 'safe' once upon a time right? Are newer plants safeR? of course, but you can't say it's without risks. And those risks for nuclear are simply orders of magnitude greater than anything else.
It will stop anyone who happens to be on my machine from casually getting them. If there's someone with the chops and motivation to scrape and otherwise do actual 'hacking' (loaded term I know) no it won't. But it makes it more than a 'Click here' scenario.
That IS better than nothing. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
Sheesh. Auto-fill is NOT showing you the passwords. Granted with a little work, you could probably capture it as it is moved from browser store to web page password field but that's a serious level of escalation compared with Chrome just saying "here's the unencrypted passwords for all stored passwords". Firefox has the ability to lock down the display of unencrypted passwords with a master password. Chrome doesn't apparently.
No it isn't. Firefox has the ability to protect your saved passwords with a Firefox Master Password. From what I'm reading here, Chrome does not have that capability.
It isn't security theater, or at least isn't broadway;-) Obviously if you leave yourself logged in, lots of bad things are possible. But having Firefox not show my encrypted passwords if I happen to forgot to lock up the desktop? That's still better than just letting them out without quibble.
It's funny, when people complain about electric vehicle batteries and supposed the looming environmental disaster if we mass produce them, the 'the batteries are recycled' argument gets shot down. Now it appears to be a valid argument?
And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.
I agree that recycling described above makes good sense...I do find the hypocrisy of the rabid's ironic but sad.
Theories are nice, but reality is a bit more problematic.
While nuclear risks can be mitigated somewhat as can risks from other sources of power, the problem is what happens when they do fail. Every single other source of power is able to be cleaned up while walking the site in a matter of days. Nuclear makes quite a large area uninhabitable for decades.
Coal pollution 'could' be stopped - we choose not to due to cost.
As this accident demonstrates, nuclear radiation from a failed plant can't be contained very well.
As for ecologically viable? Please, renewables are far and away more ecologically sound. Not quite ready for grid scale yet, but just because nuclear has better 'operational' characteristics doesn't make it 'good' since it will fail at some point. And there's all that waste lying around in spent fuel ponds we still haven't figured out what to do with.
The requestors are very cautious and only submit warrant requests in clear cases.
Indeed, we should always trust the 'prosecutors' to be above board and honest and only take what they actually need.
So why then are they tapping EVERYBODY? If you need to know what everybody is doing to find out what a few people are doing, then you suck at your job.
It would be like claiming that because I don't know a couple of hard answers on a test, I should get all the answers so I can get the few important ones right....and then get them wrong (see Boston)
to be fair though, the cops are much more likely to be performing high risk driving than the average person or (perhaps! haha) taxi's so it isn't exactly an even comparison. definitely interesting though.
I suspect the training issue dovetails in that given the significantly more dangerous driving per road mile there aren't even more crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
They certainly don't have the maintenance and upkeep of the ICE since it isn't there. Transmission is dependent on the design, it can certainly be done with a transmission or differentials.
There are simply fewer moving parts in electrics than ICEs. I was talking about engines and transmissions when I said no moving parts. Obviously all 'cars' have wheels and the assorted things that make them 'move'.
water pumps and timing belts
Things that aren't going to exist in an electric vehicle.
My point is there are significantly fewer things that need maintenance in electric vehicles compared with ICEs. Never said electrics don't have maintenance. The battery price isn't cheap, but it's easily on par with an engine rebuild/replacement no? And it's significantly less involved to remove a battery and plug in a new one than mate engines to transmissions and such.
Such as alternators, water pumps
Neither of which will be in an ELECTRIC car.
My point is LOTS of the parts of ICE cars simply don't exist in electric cars. Thus reducing the maintenance. Amenities simply aren't relevant because they are extras that are nice to have.
Batteries are currently expensive. Care to answer the question of why replacement engines/trans don't come with multi-year warranties?
I assure you batteries are the quite literal definition of 'plug and play'. You take a plug and, ahem, plug it in and it's done.
It 'can', but it doesn't need to have a transmission. 4 electric motors for each wheel handle that quite nicely. It's much more efficient that way to boot since they are smaller than a bigger single motor connected to a transmission.
And those 4 motors mean you don't have differentials at all since there aren't connections between the wheels.
The point is the really expensive parts of an ICE are the ones that usually need replacement. Engines, transmissions, etc. The moving parts that wear. Full electrics don't have those parts in the first place. The battery will need replacement, but it's a non-mechanical part that literally can be replaced with no issues; plug and play if you will.
Try that with a transmission and see if you get more than a 12 month warranty. New batteries might not have a massively longer warranty but given that they are still very new technology and the transmissions and engines are a century old, it begs the question of why they still can't provide a replacement product worthy of a better warranty?
This less guns leads to less death idea is not supported by the facts.
Yes it is, quite clearly. Look at most any civilized country and compare gun ownership rates to gun violence and you'll see a marked correlation and we're very high on both counts. Places without gun violence don't have a lot of guns available.
trucking companies have been using GPS for years. that's nothing new at all.
Yeah I have a friend who has a company supplied phone and they are expressly forbidden from turning off the GPS on the device - termination offense. Fully disclosed mind you but I would so be putting that thing down at 5pm and leaving it at the office. My friend enjoys the free cell service in exchange.
I believe his point is they actually train people to drive properly and as such don't need ridiculously lower speed limits to compensate for the morons on the road.
The guns issue is pretty self explanatory, less guns = more people still alive.
Hey, it's not my fault if the police chose to use a machine that was inferior to the human eye.
it IS legal unless it is expressly legislated to be illegal.
Not so bizarre. He ran to countries big enough to tell the US to fuck off. Putin is absolutely overjoyed at being able to stick it to the US in a way that is basically meaningless but just makes them look bad.
Thorium Nuclear - Molten Salt. Not built yet. Sure we have prototypes that have worked for a few years, but molten salts are extremely corrosive. We don't yet have the metals that can keep it self contained and sealed for a plant lifetime. It's a chemical/mechanical problem so likely not impossible but it isn't available yet. Once that's solved, I like the concept - and unlike most people against something I'm more than willing to fund it's research because it does hold promise.
Coal, fly ash spill. EXTREMELY localized and entirely preventable. This is an operational issue, not a failure issue. Much like nuclear waste is an operational issue.
Hydro-power - um, don't allow building below the dam and/or provide stable high ground shelters; hell you could even build earth works into your plan to divert any failure flow to designated routes. It's entirely preventable. there are no 'safe places' when a nuclear plant fails.
Natural gas pipelines AND plants. As I said, when coal plants and by association these fail, you can still walk the site the next day. it doesn't render the place uninhabitable.
Wind turbines - seriously? From your link - "no member of the public had ever been hurt as a result of a wind turbine accident" So um, ZERO problems.
I'm amazed you didn't put solar up there too. People like to claim that it's dangerous because it's on rooftops. As if we shouldn't have roofs on our houses because people could die putting them up there. Manufacturing of ANYTHING has dangers, but we're talking about failure conditions to the surrounding area.
You've deliberately conflated construction and maintenance issues to try and prove that 'everything' is dangerous. well of course everything is dangerous, but absolutely NOTHING has the failure issues that nuclear does.
No new, not even the safe [nuclear plants]
You do realize that Fukishima was considered 'safe' once upon a time right? Are newer plants safeR? of course, but you can't say it's without risks. And those risks for nuclear are simply orders of magnitude greater than anything else.
You appear to be talking about Chrome? I'm talking about Firefox.
and if you're into HTML inspection, you're passed the majority of people's skill. It is still better than nothing - such as Chrome 'security'.
It will stop anyone who happens to be on my machine from casually getting them. If there's someone with the chops and motivation to scrape and otherwise do actual 'hacking' (loaded term I know) no it won't. But it makes it more than a 'Click here' scenario.
That IS better than nothing. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
Sheesh. Auto-fill is NOT showing you the passwords. Granted with a little work, you could probably capture it as it is moved from browser store to web page password field but that's a serious level of escalation compared with Chrome just saying "here's the unencrypted passwords for all stored passwords". Firefox has the ability to lock down the display of unencrypted passwords with a master password. Chrome doesn't apparently.
Very very different things.
No it isn't. Firefox has the ability to protect your saved passwords with a Firefox Master Password. From what I'm reading here, Chrome does not have that capability.
It isn't security theater, or at least isn't broadway ;-) Obviously if you leave yourself logged in, lots of bad things are possible. But having Firefox not show my encrypted passwords if I happen to forgot to lock up the desktop? That's still better than just letting them out without quibble.
It's funny, when people complain about electric vehicle batteries and supposed the looming environmental disaster if we mass produce them, the 'the batteries are recycled' argument gets shot down. Now it appears to be a valid argument?
And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.
I agree that recycling described above makes good sense...I do find the hypocrisy of the rabid's ironic but sad.
Everything can be made 100% safe in theory
Theories are nice, but reality is a bit more problematic.
While nuclear risks can be mitigated somewhat as can risks from other sources of power, the problem is what happens when they do fail. Every single other source of power is able to be cleaned up while walking the site in a matter of days. Nuclear makes quite a large area uninhabitable for decades.
being lucky isn't exactly a selling point.
Coal pollution 'could' be stopped - we choose not to due to cost.
As this accident demonstrates, nuclear radiation from a failed plant can't be contained very well.
As for ecologically viable? Please, renewables are far and away more ecologically sound. Not quite ready for grid scale yet, but just because nuclear has better 'operational' characteristics doesn't make it 'good' since it will fail at some point. And there's all that waste lying around in spent fuel ponds we still haven't figured out what to do with.
The requestors are very cautious and only submit warrant requests in clear cases.
Indeed, we should always trust the 'prosecutors' to be above board and honest and only take what they actually need.
So why then are they tapping EVERYBODY? If you need to know what everybody is doing to find out what a few people are doing, then you suck at your job.
It would be like claiming that because I don't know a couple of hard answers on a test, I should get all the answers so I can get the few important ones right....and then get them wrong (see Boston)
to be fair though, the cops are much more likely to be performing high risk driving than the average person or (perhaps! haha) taxi's so it isn't exactly an even comparison. definitely interesting though.
I suspect the training issue dovetails in that given the significantly more dangerous driving per road mile there aren't even more crashes.
don't tease BlackBerry like that...