Not to mention that at 20 minutes, I'm not going to a 'gas' station. I'm going to the grocery store to pick up my food for the week along with the charge. Heck, I fill up there anyway, it'd be even faster for me.
You an idiot to believe you grocery store will have a charging station or that I won't unplug your car and use your money to charge my car instead.
You're an idiot to not read up on how the connector works - it makes a data connection with the car so it knows who is using it. If you plugged it into your car it would know that and start to charge you (money, and electricity) instead. The fact that you're a douche and unplugged someone else's (lockable) charger is not something unique to the two of you having electric cars. You're probably the guy who doesn't put the cart back after shopping and just leaves it blocking a space or just push it away so it crashes into someone else's car.
As a matter of interest, what is the LEAF like to own?
Does it drive "just like a car"? I drive a diesel minivan with a manual gearbox, so I assume it's a lightyear away from that but I'd be interested if it was similar to an automatic car (except with none of the sluggish slushmatic non-performance).
I agree with your post, but just a technical point - a person is not a murderer until they have actually murdered someone. If you arrest the person before they kill someone then attempted murderer is probably more accurate, assuming the planned crime was obvious.
I don't see it as any more dangerous than large tanks of gasoline, or above-ground propane tanks and transformers and so on.
We already have three phase outlets that can deliver that sort of punch and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that circuit breakers and other such safety systems will be a major part of any EV charging system - like they are for any high voltage/high power electrical system in use today.
So, what you're saying, GreatBunzinni, is that you have no evidence beyond "I post on the same website as bonch" and "I share similar opinions"?
I've got news for you, son, not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, nor is everyone who disagrees with you paid to do so because otherwise how else can they justify posting "obviously incorrect" information. I've been on this site since registering this account from new, and I've been the same person (and never anyone else) in that time. I've posted AC on a handful of occasions, usually because I forget to login and I'm browsing on a public machine.
You can claim we're all the same person and really wish hard all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Of course, I've got no way to actually *prove* that I'm telling the truth, which is what makes an Anonymous Coward "calling me out" as a shill and sockpuppet such a brilliant tactic for you - you have no accountability or name, and no karma. You can simply spout your inaccurate information safely from the sidelines and I have no way to definitively prove you wrong, other than an appeal to common sense on the part of anyone reading this (and given we're a few posts deep in this now, who's really reading this, other than you - I assume you keep coming back to check on your "targets" since/. won't send you email notifications to an AC post. I'd wonder aloud "do you have a life?" but that's getting into ad hom territory.
I'm pro-Apple, yes - I use Apple stuff all the time. I'm also pro-Linux and pro-Open Source, and pro-Google, and even (shock horror!) pro-Android and occasionally pro-MS when they're not making my life annoying (I have some Vista machines knocking about). I use all of those things regularly (with the exception of Android - I don't use it regularly) It doesn't mean I can't criticise any one of those things without it being some sort of vast conspiracy of multiple accounts. I have criticisms and praise for all of those things listed (and more!). I thought that's what slashdot was all about? Y'know, discussion?
It's going to get awfully dull if only "approved" messages are allowed to be posted - all policed by ACs with no accountability of course!
That gas station charger also uses materials that are here for a limited time only. These materials will keep getting more expensive, until most people cannot afford to use it every day.
What do you mean? Do you mean in its construction; being made of plastic etc? The syngas process solves that one handily, plus there are a large number of materials you can use that are non fossil-fuel derived. Plus, the material resource cost of a physical object that is designed to last a long time is not comparable to a fuel that you simply burn once and then lose forever. Less material goes into the physical product, it can be recycled afterwards, it can be made of alternative materials etc. Not to mention that reducing the use of oil and gas as a fuel leaves more of it free to be used for other very useful things - like plastics, drugs, lubricants, etc.
By the time you refill your coffee, pump the bilge, buy the snack, your car would be ready.
*And* wait in line for the one or two EVs in front of you to finish.
You're thinking like someone who can't break out of the "gas station" mentality - there's no reason for the cars to line up to get electricity from a small number of pumps that deliver liquid in the same way that gasoline or diesel is delivered. You can simply have a row of parking spaces with a connector in each one, or you put them in parking lots at the grocery store so that you recharge while you shop, or at the movie theatre, or at work etc.
A traditional gas station can simply have a set of parking spaces off to the side with a connector for each one. Positioning of charge sockets is much more flexible since it's just running a copper cable, not pipes full of liquid with the necessary pumps and so on.
The level of Google apolgism on display here is astounding.
It is *absolutely* Google's fault that they deliberately exploited a browser flaw to get around the default privacy setting. The flaw needs fixing, yes, but that doesn't mean Google is in the right to exploit it while it exists.
Since when did the existence of software bugs provide immunity from bad behaviour for those who exploit them?
The default setting is "no third party cookies unless the user specifically says so" so Google can't just set a third party cookie. What they can do (and did do) is trick the browser into accepting a cookie by silently creating a form and auto-submitting it to get around the privacy setting.
It was a browser exploit, plain and simple. It needs to be fixed, obviously, but it's not the fault of Apple that Google used the exploit.
That this comment got insightful mods shows just how poorly understood this whole mess is on slashdot (or perhaps that the prevailing wisdom is that "Google can do no wrong"?).
Safari already blocks third party cookies by default, and to get around that "pesky" setting that prevents Google's ad tracking from working (and making them money), they designed a process that used an exploit to trick Safari into believing that user authorisation had been given to set the cookie anyway.
No one is disputing that Safari needs to close that exploit (I'm sure it's being worked on, if it hasn't been closed already), but this certainly CAN NOT be described as "legitimate" use of a browser feature by any stretch of the imagination. It was an browser exploit designed to get around Safari's privacy settings.
Put it this way, the user has the setting that says "do not accept third party cookies unless I specifically say so" and Google's response and direct action to that was "nah! that's really inconvenient to us, so we'll set that cookie anyway even though you have specifically said no"
"Do No Evil (unless it interferes with the bottom line)".
I think it was definitely a tactical move. A die shrink is not a trivial process, and there are always going to be hurdles and low-volume issues and so on as you work on it, so Apple opted to test and refine the process using the iPad 2. When the process is mature and all the bugs and yield issues are sorted then they may move it to the iPad 3 line. For now, it would be unwise of them to jump right into a 32nm CPU for a product that they just launched selling as fast as they can make them (especially since there are some issues with "pink" tinted displays - there are those hiccups when a cutting edge component is ramped up to full production scale).
The iPad 2 makes a perfect scale-up testbed - it's last year's model and so is in much lower demand, but will still sell well enough for Apple to get good data on the new process since it's been discounted in price.
Screen replacement, but good attempt at reading comprehension anyway.
Either way, the screen is not much more difficult than the battery to replace. It's not really a case of "needing" an authorised repair tech, but at least authorised shops do QA before handing back the phone. Muppetry of the highest order to leave a screw in there and hand it back to the customer.
Well, the counterpoint to that is that the battery can be much bigger and the device much smaller, giving you increased battery life for the same size of device. The only downside being that after 2 years or so (my 3G was still going strong when I gave it to a family member, and it's still fine) it takes you 15 mins to change the battery pack instead of 30 seconds.
I'll take that extended battery life and lack of a removable door/panel for the "pure selfishness" of the designer forcing me to take 10 minutes or so to swap out the battery every 2+ years.
"Pure selfishness" on the part of the designer? I mean really? That's what you're going with? I get it, you hate Apple with the passion of a thousand burning suns for... some reason that escapes me. That they make... stuff? Stuff that there are alternatives for? But because people buy the Apple version and not the version you clearly think is superior this makes you hate Apple? Something like that. It's not entirely clear.
Either way, perhaps the idea that an inbuilt battery might actually be a beneficial feature for the large majority of users (with obvious cases where a separate battery is necessary for some) has escaped you?
Oh, and "battery not replaceable by user" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a user and I've replaced a couple of them - one faulty in a 3GS, one worn out in a 4. "Not replaceable" implies that you have to throw away the device when the battery is spent and it's simply untrue.
I really wish we could either shit or get off the pot.
We're not all crazy Europhobic trying to claim that "Brussels" dictating how curved a banana has to be if you plan to sell it, or other ridiculous nonsense. It's like the Tories (and parties like UKIP) want all of the benefits to the UK of close european trade, but don't want to make any of the concessions (like standardising on a currency). Just makes it awkward.
That assumes you think I believe Apple's and Microsoft's lawsuits are legitimate.
I believe Apple had a case with the design of the Samsung Galaxy, but everything else they have put out has been spurious (slide to unlock, etc), and even then I think they expanded the scope of the Samsung suit too far.
I assume that you agree that "at least half" of Moto's suits *do* involve FRAND patents then (this being one of them) and that it is absolutely the wrong thing to do and winning it is bad, regardless of who the target is (Apple, MS, Sony, Google, $Other) etc?
Yes, definitely, but they have sunk to the position of using FRAND patents to do the job, which is somewhat questionable.
If nothing else it will ensure that any standards body in the future will think long and hard before accepting any new submissions from them on future standards, so it will hurt them (and anyone owned by them) in the long run for a bit of short term gain. The point of the FRAND pool was to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, but it does depend on the various submitting members following the contractual obligations they agreed to. This very situation is one of the reasons the Mozilla foundation was so stubborn about H.264 adoption.
Funny that when it suits/., things like this are pointed out, yet when it's reversed (eg, when MS bought Skype and Skype did something "anti-Linux" before MS took control) then it is all attributed to whatever evil empire is currently en vogue. It was totally fine then - in fact, it was aggressively pointed out, and promoted as "typical" MS tactics and that thinking that MS was *not* involved was "naive". But this time it's different, right?
For the record, you're probably right - this was Motorola's attempt to abuse a couple of FRAND patents to hit back at Microsoft's litigation against them. Probably annoying and awkward for Google more than anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that at 20 minutes, I'm not going to a 'gas' station. I'm going to the grocery store to pick up my food for the week along with the charge. Heck, I fill up there anyway, it'd be even faster for me.
You an idiot to believe you grocery store will have a charging station or that I won't unplug your car and use your money to charge my car instead.
You're an idiot to not read up on how the connector works - it makes a data connection with the car so it knows who is using it. If you plugged it into your car it would know that and start to charge you (money, and electricity) instead. The fact that you're a douche and unplugged someone else's (lockable) charger is not something unique to the two of you having electric cars. You're probably the guy who doesn't put the cart back after shopping and just leaves it blocking a space or just push it away so it crashes into someone else's car.
As a matter of interest, what is the LEAF like to own?
Does it drive "just like a car"? I drive a diesel minivan with a manual gearbox, so I assume it's a lightyear away from that but I'd be interested if it was similar to an automatic car (except with none of the sluggish slushmatic non-performance).
I agree with your post, but just a technical point - a person is not a murderer until they have actually murdered someone. If you arrest the person before they kill someone then attempted murderer is probably more accurate, assuming the planned crime was obvious.
Well, it stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, so by their own rules, that would be BBC.
We also call it many things - the beeb, the BBC, auntie, channel one/two etc.
I don't see it as any more dangerous than large tanks of gasoline, or above-ground propane tanks and transformers and so on.
We already have three phase outlets that can deliver that sort of punch and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that circuit breakers and other such safety systems will be a major part of any EV charging system - like they are for any high voltage/high power electrical system in use today.
So, what you're saying, GreatBunzinni, is that you have no evidence beyond "I post on the same website as bonch" and "I share similar opinions"?
I've got news for you, son, not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, nor is everyone who disagrees with you paid to do so because otherwise how else can they justify posting "obviously incorrect" information. I've been on this site since registering this account from new, and I've been the same person (and never anyone else) in that time. I've posted AC on a handful of occasions, usually because I forget to login and I'm browsing on a public machine.
You can claim we're all the same person and really wish hard all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Of course, I've got no way to actually *prove* that I'm telling the truth, which is what makes an Anonymous Coward "calling me out" as a shill and sockpuppet such a brilliant tactic for you - you have no accountability or name, and no karma. You can simply spout your inaccurate information safely from the sidelines and I have no way to definitively prove you wrong, other than an appeal to common sense on the part of anyone reading this (and given we're a few posts deep in this now, who's really reading this, other than you - I assume you keep coming back to check on your "targets" since /. won't send you email notifications to an AC post. I'd wonder aloud "do you have a life?" but that's getting into ad hom territory.
I'm pro-Apple, yes - I use Apple stuff all the time. I'm also pro-Linux and pro-Open Source, and pro-Google, and even (shock horror!) pro-Android and occasionally pro-MS when they're not making my life annoying (I have some Vista machines knocking about). I use all of those things regularly (with the exception of Android - I don't use it regularly) It doesn't mean I can't criticise any one of those things without it being some sort of vast conspiracy of multiple accounts. I have criticisms and praise for all of those things listed (and more!). I thought that's what slashdot was all about? Y'know, discussion?
It's going to get awfully dull if only "approved" messages are allowed to be posted - all policed by ACs with no accountability of course!
Not bonch, never been bonch, never will be bonch, but nice troll attempt. I thought all this nonsense ended a couple of months ago?
That gas station charger also uses materials that are here for a limited time only. These materials will keep getting more expensive, until most people cannot afford to use it every day.
What do you mean? Do you mean in its construction; being made of plastic etc? The syngas process solves that one handily, plus there are a large number of materials you can use that are non fossil-fuel derived. Plus, the material resource cost of a physical object that is designed to last a long time is not comparable to a fuel that you simply burn once and then lose forever. Less material goes into the physical product, it can be recycled afterwards, it can be made of alternative materials etc. Not to mention that reducing the use of oil and gas as a fuel leaves more of it free to be used for other very useful things - like plastics, drugs, lubricants, etc.
By the time you refill your coffee, pump the bilge, buy the snack, your car would be ready.
*And* wait in line for the one or two EVs in front of you to finish.
You're thinking like someone who can't break out of the "gas station" mentality - there's no reason for the cars to line up to get electricity from a small number of pumps that deliver liquid in the same way that gasoline or diesel is delivered. You can simply have a row of parking spaces with a connector in each one, or you put them in parking lots at the grocery store so that you recharge while you shop, or at the movie theatre, or at work etc.
A traditional gas station can simply have a set of parking spaces off to the side with a connector for each one. Positioning of charge sockets is much more flexible since it's just running a copper cable, not pipes full of liquid with the necessary pumps and so on.
...it is even possible to do it manually (using a gas canister) if car ran out of gas before you reached the station.
Do you have a citation for that assertion or are you just making that up?
You want a citation for "carrying a spare gallon of fuel in a fuel can in the trunk"?
Jesus. What are you, a wikipedia editor?
Wow.
The level of Google apolgism on display here is astounding.
It is *absolutely* Google's fault that they deliberately exploited a browser flaw to get around the default privacy setting. The flaw needs fixing, yes, but that doesn't mean Google is in the right to exploit it while it exists.
Since when did the existence of software bugs provide immunity from bad behaviour for those who exploit them?
It's not quite that simple and you know it.
The default setting is "no third party cookies unless the user specifically says so" so Google can't just set a third party cookie. What they can do (and did do) is trick the browser into accepting a cookie by silently creating a form and auto-submitting it to get around the privacy setting.
It was a browser exploit, plain and simple. It needs to be fixed, obviously, but it's not the fault of Apple that Google used the exploit.
That this comment got insightful mods shows just how poorly understood this whole mess is on slashdot (or perhaps that the prevailing wisdom is that "Google can do no wrong"?).
Safari already blocks third party cookies by default, and to get around that "pesky" setting that prevents Google's ad tracking from working (and making them money), they designed a process that used an exploit to trick Safari into believing that user authorisation had been given to set the cookie anyway.
No one is disputing that Safari needs to close that exploit (I'm sure it's being worked on, if it hasn't been closed already), but this certainly CAN NOT be described as "legitimate" use of a browser feature by any stretch of the imagination. It was an browser exploit designed to get around Safari's privacy settings.
Put it this way, the user has the setting that says "do not accept third party cookies unless I specifically say so" and Google's response and direct action to that was "nah! that's really inconvenient to us, so we'll set that cookie anyway even though you have specifically said no"
"Do No Evil (unless it interferes with the bottom line)".
Apple just had a cooling issue with one of their products, and now they are shrinking the surface area of a product?
A die shrink reduces thermal output, lowers voltages, increases battery life.
Surely we went over all this with Ivy Bridge?
I think it was definitely a tactical move. A die shrink is not a trivial process, and there are always going to be hurdles and low-volume issues and so on as you work on it, so Apple opted to test and refine the process using the iPad 2. When the process is mature and all the bugs and yield issues are sorted then they may move it to the iPad 3 line. For now, it would be unwise of them to jump right into a 32nm CPU for a product that they just launched selling as fast as they can make them (especially since there are some issues with "pink" tinted displays - there are those hiccups when a cutting edge component is ramped up to full production scale).
The iPad 2 makes a perfect scale-up testbed - it's last year's model and so is in much lower demand, but will still sell well enough for Apple to get good data on the new process since it's been discounted in price.
No, they just suspect a non-Apple/non-Apple-approved shop because the screw was not a 5-lobe custom screw that Apple uses in its repairs.
It doesn't mean that an authorised repair shop couldn't make the same mistake.
Diesel doesn't burn either (at least not easily). You can put out fires with diesel.
Screen replacement, but good attempt at reading comprehension anyway.
Either way, the screen is not much more difficult than the battery to replace. It's not really a case of "needing" an authorised repair tech, but at least authorised shops do QA before handing back the phone. Muppetry of the highest order to leave a screw in there and hand it back to the customer.
Well, the counterpoint to that is that the battery can be much bigger and the device much smaller, giving you increased battery life for the same size of device. The only downside being that after 2 years or so (my 3G was still going strong when I gave it to a family member, and it's still fine) it takes you 15 mins to change the battery pack instead of 30 seconds.
I'll take that extended battery life and lack of a removable door/panel for the "pure selfishness" of the designer forcing me to take 10 minutes or so to swap out the battery every 2+ years.
"Pure selfishness" on the part of the designer? I mean really? That's what you're going with? I get it, you hate Apple with the passion of a thousand burning suns for... some reason that escapes me. That they make... stuff? Stuff that there are alternatives for? But because people buy the Apple version and not the version you clearly think is superior this makes you hate Apple? Something like that. It's not entirely clear.
Either way, perhaps the idea that an inbuilt battery might actually be a beneficial feature for the large majority of users (with obvious cases where a separate battery is necessary for some) has escaped you?
Oh, and "battery not replaceable by user" is a bit of a stretch. I'm a user and I've replaced a couple of them - one faulty in a 3GS, one worn out in a 4. "Not replaceable" implies that you have to throw away the device when the battery is spent and it's simply untrue.
I tried to get the quote right, but then I took an arrow in the knee.
I was going to come here to count the "arrow to the knee" references, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
I really wish we could either shit or get off the pot.
We're not all crazy Europhobic trying to claim that "Brussels" dictating how curved a banana has to be if you plan to sell it, or other ridiculous nonsense. It's like the Tories (and parties like UKIP) want all of the benefits to the UK of close european trade, but don't want to make any of the concessions (like standardising on a currency). Just makes it awkward.
That assumes you think I believe Apple's and Microsoft's lawsuits are legitimate.
I believe Apple had a case with the design of the Samsung Galaxy, but everything else they have put out has been spurious (slide to unlock, etc), and even then I think they expanded the scope of the Samsung suit too far.
I assume that you agree that "at least half" of Moto's suits *do* involve FRAND patents then (this being one of them) and that it is absolutely the wrong thing to do and winning it is bad, regardless of who the target is (Apple, MS, Sony, Google, $Other) etc?
Yes, definitely, but they have sunk to the position of using FRAND patents to do the job, which is somewhat questionable.
If nothing else it will ensure that any standards body in the future will think long and hard before accepting any new submissions from them on future standards, so it will hurt them (and anyone owned by them) in the long run for a bit of short term gain. The point of the FRAND pool was to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, but it does depend on the various submitting members following the contractual obligations they agreed to. This very situation is one of the reasons the Mozilla foundation was so stubborn about H.264 adoption.
Funny that when it suits /., things like this are pointed out, yet when it's reversed (eg, when MS bought Skype and Skype did something "anti-Linux" before MS took control) then it is all attributed to whatever evil empire is currently en vogue. It was totally fine then - in fact, it was aggressively pointed out, and promoted as "typical" MS tactics and that thinking that MS was *not* involved was "naive". But this time it's different, right?
For the record, you're probably right - this was Motorola's attempt to abuse a couple of FRAND patents to hit back at Microsoft's litigation against them. Probably annoying and awkward for Google more than anything.