Unless you can come up with battery tech that offers at least 700-800 kilometres range and a maximum recharge time of 5-10 minutes, electric cars are a dead end. Hydrogencars ftw. That is all.
The vast majority of commutes already happen well within the range of current electric cars.
It is hilarious to see all the naysayers claim that electric cars are doomed because they don't fit 100% of all possible uses cases for vehicles.
Also, as someone who works on hydrogen research, don't lump us all in with the anonymous idiot above me. Electric cars definitely have a strong future.
Right, because we continue to invest in the science and engineering behind them.
Batteries are vastly better than they were 10 years ago, because they've been in continual development. The batteries of a decade ago were similarly much more advanced than the ones that came before.
Batteries are one of the easiest areas to see the "in a few years this tech will be amazing" future speak actually pay off.
They damn will better pay 60-70% of their revenue to the people who have actually made the music. 30-40% margin really ain't that bad reselling someone else's work. Why should the streaming services get to keep 70% of their money when all they are doing is streaming an audio file over the internet. So simple to do these days. If the streaming services want higher profits they'd should commission their own music being made. If anyone is trying to be a free loaders it's the streaming services.
Haha, so cute! You think that money goes to the people who made the music!
Are you basing this percentage on the number of sensational reports in the media, or from actual stats?
This "story" already screams click bait. "Tesla catches fire and zomg it wasn't plugged and and no one was near it! - Ignore the fact that the fire department has said that there is no fire damage anywhere on the electrical components or battery, just keep clicking on 'tesla' 'fire' 'zomg!' links guys".
If this turns out to be something related to the Model S then *maybe* it is news, but right now it looks like a fire in a garage (that was also housing a Lexus) that didn't originate from the supposedly pyrophoric Model S battery/charge system, which was completely untouched.
The story seems to be "Tesla Model S near a fire". If you're going to lump fires that are nearby to the Tesla into the stats about them catching fire then the stats are going to be really skewed by that professional fire eater who just bought one.
Note that I said "Samsung Galaxy" and "Apple iPhone", and you've made the classic mistake of lumping all of the Android handsets from every manufacturer together to make one monolithic "Android" graph line.
When you look at units sold of each handset (smartphone only) alone, the Samsung Galaxy and and Apple iPhone line make up the major bulk.
When you tally it this way, Android's graph there is 30% Samsung, with every other manufacturer totalling 70%, but without any single one of them getting close to Samsung.
What that graph fools people into thinking is that Apple's weight in the market is less than it is - since they're separated out into a category of their own. It hides the facts that the two players who are really making money and setting the pace for smartphones are Samsung and Apple.
Given that it's still the top selling handset by a country mile, and that each successive iPhone sells more than the previous one, I'd have to say "yes".
The two major players in the smartphone market right now are Apple and Samsung. Whatever the two of them do right now "matters". The Galaxy line and the iPhone line make up the vast majority of smartphones in current use and currently being sold.
Sorry, but your hate for Apple doesn't change reality.
Yes, of course you can - and that's how most people order their iPhones, which are then shipped to them to arrive on release day. Quick and easy and takes about 5 minutes.
Of course, if you are doing a piece of performance art (which this guy is), by dressing up as an iPhone 6 and lining up to buy one, then going the normal pre-order route is less effective for your ultimate goal, which is to generate exposure - and success! He made it to the pages of several blogs and slashdot.
Nice ad hominem. Which is usually the last resort if you have no further factual arguments. I leave the conclusion to the reader.
Exactly. I see you noticed my point, which is why I posted logged in, replying to an AC comment doing exactly what you're pointing out so succinctly.
It's not strictly an ad hominem, since I merely restated the brave AC's point. I didn't call him names or question his intelligence. Although, I did compare his argument to RMS' classic argument for the GPL, so if you think that being compared to RMS is an ad hom then my point is even more fitting.
I leave the conclusion to the reader, when taking the whole thread, including the OP, into account.
The only freedom that BSD/etc have that GPL does not is the freedom to completely fuck over your users. And no, that is not a "freedom" I want you to have, you fucking dog shit.
A representative of the GPL, ladies and gentlemen.
"Anyone who doesn't like the GPL is dog shit". Pretty much sums up RMS' position succinctly at any rate.
They would;t have written it in the first place if GCC hadn't gone GPLv3.
Up until that point they were distributing GCC as their main compiler with Xcode, and used it to build OS X itself.
With the arrival of GPLv3, designed to shut them (and others, like Tivo) out, they had no choice but to move away from GCC. They either had to use a pre-existing compiler (potentially expensive to licence) or write their own, hence LLVM and Clang.
Prior art has nothing to do with trademarks. This is a not a patent.
You can trademark a term even if it has been used before - for example, "Windows" or "Apple" or "Radio Shack" or "Best Buy" or "Ubuntu".
All that matters for a trademark is that you register it as your protected mark in the area that you are trading in. It is not uncommon for some things to be trademarked by different companies in different areas that have the same name (for example, Apple Records and Apple Computer in the music industry and the electronics industry, before Apple Computer started to move into the music industry with the iTunes store - a source of trademark conflict between the two companies), or "Mustang" the car and "Mustang" the shoe brand.
There's no prior art issue to address because it's not relevant. The only concern to be addressed by the person approving the trademark is if the term is too generic - it has been argued that "Windows", for example, is too generic, whereas "Disney" is obviously not. If it is ruled that "candy" as a term is too generic to be made an exclusive mark then it will be rejected.
Or maybe not, if the saga from the London 2012 Olympics is anything to go by, where things like "Summer" and "2012" used together would fall foul of rules being enforced by "olympic brand managers".
I didn't "gloss over" the other sections of the argument, I'm simply not arguing those points (I agree that it was a terrible system as set up by default and that these in-app purchase "freemium" games are a cancer on the face of the app store), so there's that. You appear to have assumed I am totally pro-Apple because I disagree with you.
The reason I am posting is that your (and others) information is provably factually incorrect, based on very simple google searches that link directly to sources provided by Apple.
I've then been challenged that these instructions "don't always work", in a move-the-goalposts argument (the previous argument being that they are "forcing" you to use a credit card and that "there's no way to do it without one", and when they get called on the bullshit it's suddenly "oh, we;ll it's deceptive practice because it doesn't always work". Those two arguments are not the same.
The "doesn't always work" argument also seems fishy, but I am obviously not able to directly refute that except with anecdotal evidence. I have set up perhaps 10 or 12 different Apple IDs for various people over the past few years and none of them have ever run into this problem. I always set them up without a credit card so they can get going, and tell them they can add one later if they want to purchase things. So, in my personal experience it has always worked, but obviously a dozen or so data points is not enough to say definitively. However, it is enough to point out that the original argument, as stated (that is is impossible, and that Apple forces you to put in a CC with no way to get around it) is totally false.
How did you struggle with something that takes 5 seconds to google?
I'm genuinely curious how so many supposed "tech experts", i.e. comfortable enough with technology to be posting on a site like slashdot, can struggle so desperately with something as simple as setting up an Apple ID with no credit card - the answer to which is literally the first result on google when you search "how to set up apple id without credit card".
They struggle so much that they feel the need to post their ignorance for the world to see, and for the easy karma.
It shouldn't require a trick. I set up my android without a credit card.
That's why it doesn't. You do not need a credit card to set up an Apple ID. The original poster claiming that Apple "forces" you to put in a credit card is lying.
Cool story bro, where's the "-1 hilariously wrong" mod.
You absolutely 100% do not need to enter a credit card to set up an Apple ID - I just created two apple IDs for my cousins on new computers that they purchased. Number of credit cards I needed to enter to set up two new, unique Apple IDs: Zero.
And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way.
Wait, how does GPLv3 prevent them from shipping it in a bundle with Xcode? I'm pretty sure that's allowed under GPL3, but Apple didn't like the patent clauses.
The anti-Tivo clause, written exactly because of the perceived "weakness" of GPLv2 (insofar as it allowed more freedom to the sorts of developers that the writers of the GPL dislike) that enabled closed-sourced pieces of code and hardware that are part of a product to be kept back, while the (now essentially less useful without the closed bit) code could be released following the letter of the licence.
Xcode is not open source, but parts of it are. Given the way that the compiler is heavily integrated into it, using a GPLv3 licenced one would simply be infeasible, given that the whole of the source is not available.
A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way. The GPLv3 absolutely limits what you can do with that code. It is a very restrictively and carefully written licence in certain very key areas (not that this is necessarily a bad thing if you want such a thing - and there are valid reasons for it existing).
So, no Apple couldn't have done that "if they really wanted to", without making the whole of Xcode open source.
That's not really "choice" and "freedom" is it? That's what this comes down to - the GPL protects the freedom of the *code* whereas the BSD licence protects the freedom of the *users and/or developers* of that code.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, my Xsara Picasso has a 60 litre tank.
The Ford Focus has a 55 litre tank, which is the next size down.
Unless you can come up with battery tech that offers at least 700-800 kilometres range and a maximum recharge time of 5-10 minutes, electric cars are a dead end. Hydrogencars ftw. That is all.
The vast majority of commutes already happen well within the range of current electric cars.
It is hilarious to see all the naysayers claim that electric cars are doomed because they don't fit 100% of all possible uses cases for vehicles.
Also, as someone who works on hydrogen research, don't lump us all in with the anonymous idiot above me. Electric cars definitely have a strong future.
Right, because we continue to invest in the science and engineering behind them.
Batteries are vastly better than they were 10 years ago, because they've been in continual development. The batteries of a decade ago were similarly much more advanced than the ones that came before.
Batteries are one of the easiest areas to see the "in a few years this tech will be amazing" future speak actually pay off.
They damn will better pay 60-70% of their revenue to the people who have actually made the music. 30-40% margin really ain't that bad reselling someone else's work. Why should the streaming services get to keep 70% of their money when all they are doing is streaming an audio file over the internet. So simple to do these days. If the streaming services want higher profits they'd should commission their own music being made. If anyone is trying to be a free loaders it's the streaming services.
Haha, so cute! You think that money goes to the people who made the music!
Man, I needed a laugh today.
Well, I'm not in the former camp or the latter camp - I work on hydrogen research. ;)
Are you basing this percentage on the number of sensational reports in the media, or from actual stats?
This "story" already screams click bait. "Tesla catches fire and zomg it wasn't plugged and and no one was near it! - Ignore the fact that the fire department has said that there is no fire damage anywhere on the electrical components or battery, just keep clicking on 'tesla' 'fire' 'zomg!' links guys".
If this turns out to be something related to the Model S then *maybe* it is news, but right now it looks like a fire in a garage (that was also housing a Lexus) that didn't originate from the supposedly pyrophoric Model S battery/charge system, which was completely untouched.
The story seems to be "Tesla Model S near a fire". If you're going to lump fires that are nearby to the Tesla into the stats about them catching fire then the stats are going to be really skewed by that professional fire eater who just bought one.
Note that I said "Samsung Galaxy" and "Apple iPhone", and you've made the classic mistake of lumping all of the Android handsets from every manufacturer together to make one monolithic "Android" graph line.
When you look at units sold of each handset (smartphone only) alone, the Samsung Galaxy and and Apple iPhone line make up the major bulk.
When you tally it this way, Android's graph there is 30% Samsung, with every other manufacturer totalling 70%, but without any single one of them getting close to Samsung.
What that graph fools people into thinking is that Apple's weight in the market is less than it is - since they're separated out into a category of their own. It hides the facts that the two players who are really making money and setting the pace for smartphones are Samsung and Apple.
Given that it's still the top selling handset by a country mile, and that each successive iPhone sells more than the previous one, I'd have to say "yes".
The two major players in the smartphone market right now are Apple and Samsung. Whatever the two of them do right now "matters". The Galaxy line and the iPhone line make up the vast majority of smartphones in current use and currently being sold.
Sorry, but your hate for Apple doesn't change reality.
In his circle, yes, since he's a performance artist and this whole escapade has been an act.
Yes, of course you can - and that's how most people order their iPhones, which are then shipped to them to arrive on release day. Quick and easy and takes about 5 minutes.
Of course, if you are doing a piece of performance art (which this guy is), by dressing up as an iPhone 6 and lining up to buy one, then going the normal pre-order route is less effective for your ultimate goal, which is to generate exposure - and success! He made it to the pages of several blogs and slashdot.
Nice ad hominem. Which is usually the last resort if you have no further factual arguments. I leave the conclusion to the reader.
Exactly. I see you noticed my point, which is why I posted logged in, replying to an AC comment doing exactly what you're pointing out so succinctly.
It's not strictly an ad hominem, since I merely restated the brave AC's point. I didn't call him names or question his intelligence. Although, I did compare his argument to RMS' classic argument for the GPL, so if you think that being compared to RMS is an ad hom then my point is even more fitting.
I leave the conclusion to the reader, when taking the whole thread, including the OP, into account.
The only freedom that BSD/etc have that GPL does not is the freedom to completely fuck over your users. And no, that is not a "freedom" I want you to have, you fucking dog shit.
A representative of the GPL, ladies and gentlemen.
"Anyone who doesn't like the GPL is dog shit". Pretty much sums up RMS' position succinctly at any rate.
They would;t have written it in the first place if GCC hadn't gone GPLv3.
Up until that point they were distributing GCC as their main compiler with Xcode, and used it to build OS X itself.
With the arrival of GPLv3, designed to shut them (and others, like Tivo) out, they had no choice but to move away from GCC. They either had to use a pre-existing compiler (potentially expensive to licence) or write their own, hence LLVM and Clang.
What the fuck did I just see?!
I think my brain is bleeding.
Prior art has nothing to do with trademarks. This is a not a patent.
You can trademark a term even if it has been used before - for example, "Windows" or "Apple" or "Radio Shack" or "Best Buy" or "Ubuntu".
All that matters for a trademark is that you register it as your protected mark in the area that you are trading in. It is not uncommon for some things to be trademarked by different companies in different areas that have the same name (for example, Apple Records and Apple Computer in the music industry and the electronics industry, before Apple Computer started to move into the music industry with the iTunes store - a source of trademark conflict between the two companies), or "Mustang" the car and "Mustang" the shoe brand.
There's no prior art issue to address because it's not relevant. The only concern to be addressed by the person approving the trademark is if the term is too generic - it has been argued that "Windows", for example, is too generic, whereas "Disney" is obviously not. If it is ruled that "candy" as a term is too generic to be made an exclusive mark then it will be rejected.
Or maybe not, if the saga from the London 2012 Olympics is anything to go by, where things like "Summer" and "2012" used together would fall foul of rules being enforced by "olympic brand managers".
I didn't "gloss over" the other sections of the argument, I'm simply not arguing those points (I agree that it was a terrible system as set up by default and that these in-app purchase "freemium" games are a cancer on the face of the app store), so there's that. You appear to have assumed I am totally pro-Apple because I disagree with you.
The reason I am posting is that your (and others) information is provably factually incorrect, based on very simple google searches that link directly to sources provided by Apple.
I've then been challenged that these instructions "don't always work", in a move-the-goalposts argument (the previous argument being that they are "forcing" you to use a credit card and that "there's no way to do it without one", and when they get called on the bullshit it's suddenly "oh, we;ll it's deceptive practice because it doesn't always work". Those two arguments are not the same.
The "doesn't always work" argument also seems fishy, but I am obviously not able to directly refute that except with anecdotal evidence. I have set up perhaps 10 or 12 different Apple IDs for various people over the past few years and none of them have ever run into this problem. I always set them up without a credit card so they can get going, and tell them they can add one later if they want to purchase things. So, in my personal experience it has always worked, but obviously a dozen or so data points is not enough to say definitively. However, it is enough to point out that the original argument, as stated (that is is impossible, and that Apple forces you to put in a CC with no way to get around it) is totally false.
Literally the first result on google (I assumer you've heard of it?) is how to do just that.
So I assume you and 15K people are too stupid to press "I'm feeling lucky" on google.
Don't worry, it happens.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3955842?tstart=0
Maybe there was a step i missed as well, or something wrong with how i did it?
I recall it telling me i had two id's (itunes and apple ID) or such. I was then presented with a form with the top section being for CC details.
I dont recall seeing an option to skip this, and when i tried it just highlighted things in red indicating an error in the form.
Literally the first result on google for how to do it: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2534?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
I googled "how to set up apple id without credit card" and pressed "I'm feeling lucky".
Seriously, this is not hard.
How did you struggle with something that takes 5 seconds to google?
I'm genuinely curious how so many supposed "tech experts", i.e. comfortable enough with technology to be posting on a site like slashdot, can struggle so desperately with something as simple as setting up an Apple ID with no credit card - the answer to which is literally the first result on google when you search "how to set up apple id without credit card".
They struggle so much that they feel the need to post their ignorance for the world to see, and for the easy karma.
I created an "appleID" a week ago, it absolutely refused to move forward until i entered a VALID credit card.
No you didn't. You can drop the lies, you're only fooling people who automatically assume you're correct without checking.
You do not need a credit card to create an Apple ID. You don't even need a gift card.
If you couldn't figure that out, then maybe the problem is with your reading comprehension?
It shouldn't require a trick. I set up my android without a credit card.
That's why it doesn't. You do not need a credit card to set up an Apple ID. The original poster claiming that Apple "forces" you to put in a credit card is lying.
You don't even need to do that. Setting up an Apple ID does not require a credit card. It costs $0, and takes about 5 minutes.
Cool story bro, where's the "-1 hilariously wrong" mod.
You absolutely 100% do not need to enter a credit card to set up an Apple ID - I just created two apple IDs for my cousins on new computers that they purchased. Number of credit cards I needed to enter to set up two new, unique Apple IDs: Zero.
And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way.
Wait, how does GPLv3 prevent them from shipping it in a bundle with Xcode? I'm pretty sure that's allowed under GPL3, but Apple didn't like the patent clauses.
The anti-Tivo clause, written exactly because of the perceived "weakness" of GPLv2 (insofar as it allowed more freedom to the sorts of developers that the writers of the GPL dislike) that enabled closed-sourced pieces of code and hardware that are part of a product to be kept back, while the (now essentially less useful without the closed bit) code could be released following the letter of the licence.
Xcode is not open source, but parts of it are. Given the way that the compiler is heavily integrated into it, using a GPLv3 licenced one would simply be infeasible, given that the whole of the source is not available.
A free software license does not limit what you can do with the code. For all intents and purposes Apple could have released their code under GPLv3+ and they would have been fine. I totally understand why they choose not to do that, but it was Apples choice to do it; they could have done different if they really, really, really wanted to.
And then shipped it together as a bundle with Xcode? The GPLv3 specifically prevents them doing that, and it was deliberately written that way. The GPLv3 absolutely limits what you can do with that code. It is a very restrictively and carefully written licence in certain very key areas (not that this is necessarily a bad thing if you want such a thing - and there are valid reasons for it existing).
So, no Apple couldn't have done that "if they really wanted to", without making the whole of Xcode open source.
That's not really "choice" and "freedom" is it? That's what this comes down to - the GPL protects the freedom of the *code* whereas the BSD licence protects the freedom of the *users and/or developers* of that code.