They just want money, so they say there will be some sort of catastrophe so they can get funding for their so-called studies. They even managed to throw in think of the children on top of their other hyperbole. I, for one, want absolute iron-clad proof that something disastrous will happen before we lift a finger to prevent it.
The above post may contain toxic doses of sarcasm.
Proof? Look at mortality rates from simple wounds prior to antibiotics. Read the reports about drug resistant bacteria that already is prevalent in the hospitals and the dangers involved. To clean the hospitals, they use strong chemicals and UV light, both known to be detrimental to human beings. You want proof? All you need to do is look at mortality rates about 100 years ago.
You should've finished reading before hitting reply, unless there's delicate, subtle sarcasm in your post I'm not getting.
Well, the original post was modded to +5 insightful, so I guess that I like many took the first part of the original post to contain the sarcasm and the last sentence to be straight forward./. really should implement a sarcasm tag.
Not to say that anti-biotic resistant bacteria aren't a significant problem, but 100 years ago we had poor nutrition and poor sanitation and poor hygiene. Most of the reason those scrapes and bruises and for that matter surgeries resulted in such appallingly high mortality is that people didn't clean wounds or their hands, including surgeons.
To compare those days to today is really rather ridiculous. Even if a significant number of bacteria strains became totally anti-biotic immune we'd still not have anything close to the death tolls experienced 100 years ago. It's a serious issue, but we don't have a black death coming any more than H1N1 resulted in the kind of death tolls we saw in the early 20th century.
Of course, a lot of the improvements you mention are related specifically to the introduction of antibiotics. Cleaning wounds with soap and water only goes so far and can't be down with deep wounds. MRSA is already a very real problem for hospitals, which is why they are taking such precautions already. But even in 2nd world countries where there is decent sanitation and the like, bacterial infections are a real problem because of the lack of antibiotics. It is easy to extrapolate that to 1st world countries if antibiotics became ineffective.
Even going back to the 1950s, people died from staph infections all the time. During the Korean War, wounded soldiers often had successful surgeries but died from infection. That occurred whether in a MASH or at a real hospital. Sulfa powder, while more effective than nothing wasn't very effective compared to antibiotics.
Of course if the medical profession wants to get the public to take note, just tell them that we won't be able to treat syphilis anymore. If common STDs become untreatable and declared an epidemic, then the public will take notice.
They just want money, so they say there will be some sort of catastrophe so they can get funding for their so-called studies. They even managed to throw in think of the children on top of their other hyperbole. I, for one, want absolute iron-clad proof that something disastrous will happen before we lift a finger to prevent it.
The above post may contain toxic doses of sarcasm.
Proof? Look at mortality rates from simple wounds prior to antibiotics. Read the reports about drug resistant bacteria that already is prevalent in the hospitals and the dangers involved. To clean the hospitals, they use strong chemicals and UV light, both known to be detrimental to human beings. You want proof? All you need to do is look at mortality rates about 100 years ago.
I'm not sure why they should be trying to "convince the public" either - they should be convincing those that are handing out the anti-biotics.
Plus how the hell is falling out of a tree any less dangerous than being in a car crash? I'd rather be surrounded by steel and air-bags if something hard is going to be slammed into my body.. uh, well, that sounded a bit wrong, but whatever.
Maybe the author's point was that they don't love their kids, because having your kid get hurt isn't as bad as risking yourself..?
The author's point was that falling out of a tree usually causes a minimum of a cut or abrasion in the skin. Likewise a car accident. No antibiotics means even a minor break in the skin could become life threatening.
That may not be true. Cooperation is just as inborn a trait as assholism. I don't mean to paint a rosy picture, but please consider that most of the people still living on the planet under a tribal/primitive lifestyle are pretty calm and get along pretty well.
Natural selection works for the talkers as well as the fighters. Sometimes in the same individual.
Darwin actually said as much. He pointed out that humans weren't the strongest or the fastest or any of the "ests" and yet we rose to the top. People credit him for his "survival of the fittest" theory, but he actually rarely used that term and it contradicted his main theme that since humans were not the fittest on so many levels it was our ability to cooperate that allowed us to not only survive but to dominate.
We still see this today, for instance with hunting. Hunting a deer by yourself may or may not yield success. In a group, where others drive the deer towards the hunters, the success rate is much higher. Today, hunting is a sport, but back then, it was about survival. The whole clan or community benefited by the cooperation. Now hunting is a over simplified example, the reality is that in the wild, even today, the odds of a single human being surviving for extended periods is limited. Not that it can't be done, but it is extremely difficult. With a community, even a small one, there is division of tasks and even though there are more mouths to feed, more can be accomplished to secure food and shelter and ultimately the survival of progeny.
So while raping and pillaging were no doubt part of early human life, that is not what led to homo sapiens overtaking other competing hominids (as it is likely that they also raped and pillaged, too). It was that homo sapiens were much better at cooperating than their counterparts.
The part that bothered me back in high school is that they were never satisfied I had learned the fundamentals. Long after I had those down, years afterwards, I was forbidden from using advanced calculators for various tests and exams. I was treated as an imbecile who had no personal stake in his own education and betterment, to be trained and drilled rather than taught and instructed. Make no mistake, this is conditioning for subservience. I wish more people saw this for what it was and rejected it as I have done. I do not wish to be anomalous or unique or special in this regard. It is not a status symbol for myself. It is a lament for the masses.
I guess all of the rote memorization and drilling that med students have to do is to condition them for subservience, too, right? Or could it be that it is simply part of the learning process?
Maybe you lament for the masses wasn't intended to sound this way, but it comes across somewhat self-centered and whiney. There are many reasons why an advanced calculator might not be allowed for a test, the most common being that not everybody taking the test has access to one and if the grades are curved, it introduces a bias, not based on knowledge, but based on technology. In addition, if advanced calculators are not allowed for a test, it is likely that the functionality they provide are probably not required to successfully complete the test.
You quote Einstein in your sig -- look at everything he accomplished without even a basic calculator.
what about drop the old 4 year idea and moving to an smaller and more skill based badges system?
Don't we have that already with IT certifications? The rest of the working world may benefit from something similar, flawed as certifications are.
Technically, a college diploma is a certification. The difference is that it is offered by the educational institution whereas IT certs usually are from the vendor of a specific product they ultimately want you to buy.
Actually, community colleges are far more cost effective than the major universities. Probably because they have to live within their means.
As for ditch diggers, just remember that the next time you need a sewer line put in, or cable or electric or anything else underground, that ditch diggers, usually make far above the minimum wage that many college graduates are making.
College has generally become more affordable, and far more people go to college now than 40 years ago. Furthermore, a college education costs about as much as a good mid-size car; if you can't afford paying that back, you picked the wrong major.
Most instate Universities with room and board are around $18,000/yr. So, a 4 year degree is in the neighborhood of $72,000. I don't know what mid-size cars you drive, but that's pretty steep. College has become anything but more affordable. If it had been, there would have been less need for student loans, not more.
It has nothing to do with the major one picks (although some majors do not gain one an advantage in employment). 40 years ago, a college degree in business allowed one to jump into middle management. Today, it is pretty much standard for administrative assistants to have one. Yes, today's administrative assistatns do more than yesterday's secretaries and stenographers, but $72,000 worth of education more?
No, the system is broke, because somebod confused correlation and causation 40 years ago when the push for everybody to have an education really took off. Yes, people with degrees made more money than those without back then, but without all of today's financial aid, many of those people attending college already had a socio-economic advantage. Yes, there is no doubt that in certain fields it really did make a difference, but in most, we all knew the doctor's kid was going to get a better job with or without college than the farmer's kid was.
But, with all the best intentions, after misidentifying the real problem, we through billions of dollars at it so that today, many, many people have a college education, but the doctor's kid still gets the better job than the farmer's kid, because often it's not about what you know, but who you know that makes the difference.
I've heard of 1 based counting (0,1,2,3,4, etc) I've heard of 2 based counting (0,2,4,6,8, etc) I've heard of 5 and 10 based counting (0,5,10,15, etc. or 0,10, 20, 30, etc.) and so on, but wouldn't 0 based counting just give you 0,0,0,0,0?
Point 2 isn't feasible. unless some new undiscovered technology is found, all EVs suffer from reduced battery life the more the batteries are recharged. To get maximum battery life, you need recharge them when they are almost drained and bring them to a full charge.
This is a myth. Please stop presenting it as fact.
Indeed, what you describe is the very worst way in which you can treat any rechargeable battery.
Tesla, itslef states that battery life is dependent on the number of charge/discharge cycles and reccommends against frequent charging when the battery is relatively "full." Their circuitry prevents an overcharge, but does not stop the gradual breakdown at the poles that occur every time current is reversed through the battery. As such running your battery down 20% and recharging 4 times versus running down to 20% and charging once shortens the useful battery life.
Shortening the life does not mean that the battery will just quit working one day. It will mean that if you could get 160 miles on it new, you might only be getting 110 miles or even less. The battery still works, of course, but its usefulness for powering the vehicle comes sooner than planned.
It's not just multiple charges. High current quick charges also cause problems for Li+ batteries. They may be convenient at the time, because you don't have to wait overnight to charge the batteries, but you pay in the long run by shorter range and/or earlier replacement.
Maybe it is all a myth, but given the price of a tesla, I think I would still follow their advice on recharging.
reliability and durability should be higher with electric. Fewer moving parts. For what it's worth, Nissan and Toyota own the mid-size truck market.
If you treat the engine as a single unit in a vehicle, how many more moving parts are there in a standard vehicle? Both have suspensions and steering boxes and A/C compressors, etc. Yes, the engine has more moving parts internally, but really, for modern cars, that reliability is not an issue.
As for Nissan and Toyota owning the mid size truck market, well no shit! The others abandoned the market a long time ago.
Not everyone who wants a pickup wants to use it to tow a boat or RV. I have had a pickup that only rarely towed things and it wasn't for a status symbol. I used it to haul my Mtn Bike around, or my Skis, or to sleep under the canopy... People use them to haul dogs, tools, parts, lumber, appliances, and to help their friends move.
Even an F-150 is overkill for that kind of thing; the Ranger would have been good enough.
6. Place a generator in the bed, and its almost as good as a real truck!
Actually, I would place a small diesel generator under the hood and forgo the batteries. An F150 (assuming it would be about that size) has enough space in the current engine compartment for a small generator and electric motor or you could use a motor per wheel design.
Basically, you would operate like a diesel locomotive, but on a smaller scale, with an alternator powering some type of traction motor. Size keeps this from working on cars, but a full size truck should work quite readily.
Not totally emmission free, but then neither is all electric, unless it is somehow charged off the grid as current power plants have emmissions, too.
I can see this selling to rednecks. Even they are going solar as opposed to having to deal with the grid.
A Tesla truck has a lot of nice advantages that would be useful, especially for rednecks:
1: Max torque at 0 RPM. This can be extremely handy.
2: No fuel needed, which is a good thing as there is a growing off-grid mentality. Even if the truck trickle charges on a 120VAC, 20A connection via a set of solar panels, it still will be useful. With a larger solar or wind array, a 440VAC charger can be used. Of course, with a redneck, they just sling a generator in the back if worried about range.
3: There is also a very useful feature of an electric pickup truck. Stick an inverter on the batteries, and you have a very large battery for running electric equipment and no obnoxious generator noise.
4: There are times when one idles a pickup truck due to needing heat or A/C. Idling an electric car takes up 0 fuel other than what is used for accessories.
5: Less noise and smell... easier on animals.
I'll give you point 1, although all of that torque, if there is a heavy load comes at the price of really draining the batteries, quite quickly. Point 2 isn't feasible. unless some new undiscovered technology is found, all EVs suffer from reduced battery life the more the batteries are recharged. To get maximum battery life, you need recharge them when they are almost drained and bring them to a full charge. You probably aren't going to do this with a solar trickle charger and if you are going to haul around a solar array or a generator in the bed, then the truck won't be much use as a truck.
Point 3 and 4 are related. Any power used for other purposes is power not available for driving. Sure you can use the batteries to power mega-amps and a super sound system, but you better have power available to recharge the batteries and if you do have power available, then why use the batteries? Likewise running things like the A/C can quickly drain the batteries. Even on a regular car, it is amazing how much running the A/C compressor can put a load on the engine. In physics, work is work and whether powered by a gas motor or batteries, energy needs to be expended to run the AC. At least on a conventional car, the heat is virtually free as it is a waste product, but not so on an EV.
Point 5 is true, at least for the noise and smell. As for road kill, it probably makes no difference to the animals whether is a conventional or EV that hits them.
It probably doesn't hurt that (particularly among vocational users of pickups), more than a few of them are called upon to deliver a fair amount of cargo, than sit there, potentially charging, while the occupants do construction things or such with the cargo.
That is going to depend on whether or not the job site has a high amp charging station. One of the problems plaguing current EVs is that multiple partial charges shorten battery life. So, unless your EV truck is close to needing a full charge and you actually have the equipment and/or time to give it a full charge, charging it at the worksite could very well be reducing the uselife of the truck.
Ford stopped sale of all light trucks in the USA for CAFE reasons, so what reason did they give for cutting the EV that wouldn't be negatively affected by CAFE?
They may say it was for CAFE reasons but the reality is that it costs them about the same to build a Ranger as it does the F series, but they can charge a damn lot more for the F series. In the end, it's simple economics. The don't sell light trucks in the US because they are trying to maximize profits.
Yeah, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is news. It's been like this since the days of the grayscale Nokia phones. A phone that is turned of can still be located by the cell towers and it can in some cases be remotely turned on and used as a listening device. Back then security experts advised to remove the battery before you discussed secrets in a corporate or government setting, in order to avoid falling victim to espionage.
I guess it's just not very practical to follow that advice. Some government agencies and some corporations have probably installed jammers or shielding around certain meeting rooms in order to keep top meetings secure.
Probably because some very popular phones make it impossible to remove the batteries.
Did you know that inside EVERY SINGLE electronic circuit is an "OS" that is trusted for EVERYTHING? It's called "the laws of physics". If that circuit gets a signal to switch on, EVEN FROM A MALWARE AUTHOR, *it will switch*.
Worse, there's absolutely NO WAY to remove it!
QUICK! HIDE FROM THE PAEDO TAKING OVER YOUR COMPUTER!!!!
It doesn't even need a malware author. A stray electronic field is usually enough to flip the switch on or off or more likely completely burn it out.
Why stop there? Every cell phone also runs on an operating system called QM (quantum mechanics). Hack that and you can make the phone do all sorts of really cool things.
Just because the house has windows viewable by the public doesn't mean the public has the right to peer into your house to watch you prance around naked.
If you're prancing around naked, with the shades / curtains open, in a window visible from the street, it's not illegal to look at you from the street. If anything, you may be committing indecent exposure, if someone who sees you decides to complain about it and the police decide to do something about the complaint.
It's the same rules as being naked in your own backyard: If the neighbors see you, that's not their problem.
That is true, but it is illegal to walk up to the house and peer into the window through the gap between the shade and the sill, which is the point I was trying to make.
Slashdot Mirror
They just want money, so they say there will be some sort of catastrophe so they can get funding for their so-called studies. They even managed to throw in think of the children on top of their other hyperbole. I, for one, want absolute iron-clad proof that something disastrous will happen before we lift a finger to prevent it.
The above post may contain toxic doses of sarcasm.
Proof? Look at mortality rates from simple wounds prior to antibiotics. Read the reports about drug resistant bacteria that already is prevalent in the hospitals and the dangers involved. To clean the hospitals, they use strong chemicals and UV light, both known to be detrimental to human beings. You want proof? All you need to do is look at mortality rates about 100 years ago.
You should've finished reading before hitting reply, unless there's delicate, subtle sarcasm in your post I'm not getting.
Well, the original post was modded to +5 insightful, so I guess that I like many took the first part of the original post to contain the sarcasm and the last sentence to be straight forward. /. really should implement a sarcasm tag.
Not to say that anti-biotic resistant bacteria aren't a significant problem, but 100 years ago we had poor nutrition and poor sanitation and poor hygiene. Most of the reason those scrapes and bruises and for that matter surgeries resulted in such appallingly high mortality is that people didn't clean wounds or their hands, including surgeons.
To compare those days to today is really rather ridiculous. Even if a significant number of bacteria strains became totally anti-biotic immune we'd still not have anything close to the death tolls experienced 100 years ago. It's a serious issue, but we don't have a black death coming any more than H1N1 resulted in the kind of death tolls we saw in the early 20th century.
Of course, a lot of the improvements you mention are related specifically to the introduction of antibiotics. Cleaning wounds with soap and water only goes so far and can't be down with deep wounds. MRSA is already a very real problem for hospitals, which is why they are taking such precautions already. But even in 2nd world countries where there is decent sanitation and the like, bacterial infections are a real problem because of the lack of antibiotics. It is easy to extrapolate that to 1st world countries if antibiotics became ineffective.
Even going back to the 1950s, people died from staph infections all the time. During the Korean War, wounded soldiers often had successful surgeries but died from infection. That occurred whether in a MASH or at a real hospital. Sulfa powder, while more effective than nothing wasn't very effective compared to antibiotics.
Of course if the medical profession wants to get the public to take note, just tell them that we won't be able to treat syphilis anymore. If common STDs become untreatable and declared an epidemic, then the public will take notice.
They just want money, so they say there will be some sort of catastrophe so they can get funding for their so-called studies. They even managed to throw in think of the children on top of their other hyperbole. I, for one, want absolute iron-clad proof that something disastrous will happen before we lift a finger to prevent it.
The above post may contain toxic doses of sarcasm.
Proof? Look at mortality rates from simple wounds prior to antibiotics. Read the reports about drug resistant bacteria that already is prevalent in the hospitals and the dangers involved. To clean the hospitals, they use strong chemicals and UV light, both known to be detrimental to human beings. You want proof? All you need to do is look at mortality rates about 100 years ago.
Saying something is as scary as terrorism is like saying it's as dangerous as marijuana.
Marijuana is dangerous. Maybe not to smoke it, but ask the drug agents about the drug cartels sometime.
I'm not sure why they should be trying to "convince the public" either - they should be convincing those that are handing out the anti-biotics.
Plus how the hell is falling out of a tree any less dangerous than being in a car crash? I'd rather be surrounded by steel and air-bags if something hard is going to be slammed into my body.. uh, well, that sounded a bit wrong, but whatever.
Maybe the author's point was that they don't love their kids, because having your kid get hurt isn't as bad as risking yourself..?
The author's point was that falling out of a tree usually causes a minimum of a cut or abrasion in the skin. Likewise a car accident. No antibiotics means even a minor break in the skin could become life threatening.
That may not be true. Cooperation is just as inborn a trait as assholism. I don't mean to paint a rosy picture, but please consider that most of the people still living on the planet under a tribal/primitive lifestyle are pretty calm and get along pretty well.
Natural selection works for the talkers as well as the fighters. Sometimes in the same individual.
Darwin actually said as much. He pointed out that humans weren't the strongest or the fastest or any of the "ests" and yet we rose to the top. People credit him for his "survival of the fittest" theory, but he actually rarely used that term and it contradicted his main theme that since humans were not the fittest on so many levels it was our ability to cooperate that allowed us to not only survive but to dominate.
We still see this today, for instance with hunting. Hunting a deer by yourself may or may not yield success. In a group, where others drive the deer towards the hunters, the success rate is much higher. Today, hunting is a sport, but back then, it was about survival. The whole clan or community benefited by the cooperation. Now hunting is a over simplified example, the reality is that in the wild, even today, the odds of a single human being surviving for extended periods is limited. Not that it can't be done, but it is extremely difficult. With a community, even a small one, there is division of tasks and even though there are more mouths to feed, more can be accomplished to secure food and shelter and ultimately the survival of progeny.
So while raping and pillaging were no doubt part of early human life, that is not what led to homo sapiens overtaking other competing hominids (as it is likely that they also raped and pillaged, too). It was that homo sapiens were much better at cooperating than their counterparts.
The part that bothered me back in high school is that they were never satisfied I had learned the fundamentals. Long after I had those down, years afterwards, I was forbidden from using advanced calculators for various tests and exams. I was treated as an imbecile who had no personal stake in his own education and betterment, to be trained and drilled rather than taught and instructed. Make no mistake, this is conditioning for subservience. I wish more people saw this for what it was and rejected it as I have done. I do not wish to be anomalous or unique or special in this regard. It is not a status symbol for myself. It is a lament for the masses.
I guess all of the rote memorization and drilling that med students have to do is to condition them for subservience, too, right? Or could it be that it is simply part of the learning process?
Maybe you lament for the masses wasn't intended to sound this way, but it comes across somewhat self-centered and whiney. There are many reasons why an advanced calculator might not be allowed for a test, the most common being that not everybody taking the test has access to one and if the grades are curved, it introduces a bias, not based on knowledge, but based on technology. In addition, if advanced calculators are not allowed for a test, it is likely that the functionality they provide are probably not required to successfully complete the test.
You quote Einstein in your sig -- look at everything he accomplished without even a basic calculator.
No, it does not
Face it, the US pushed ethanol to help the farmers, not the environment. Plain and Simple!
what about drop the old 4 year idea and moving to an smaller and more skill based badges system?
Don't we have that already with IT certifications? The rest of the working world may benefit from something similar, flawed as certifications are.
Technically, a college diploma is a certification. The difference is that it is offered by the educational institution whereas IT certs usually are from the vendor of a specific product they ultimately want you to buy.
Obama is going to revolutionize and rationalize education, just like he has revolutionized and rationalized health care.
Well, if he would just undo the damage created by no child left behind, it would be a great start.
Actually, community colleges are far more cost effective than the major universities. Probably because they have to live within their means.
As for ditch diggers, just remember that the next time you need a sewer line put in, or cable or electric or anything else underground, that ditch diggers, usually make far above the minimum wage that many college graduates are making.
College has generally become more affordable, and far more people go to college now than 40 years ago. Furthermore, a college education costs about as much as a good mid-size car; if you can't afford paying that back, you picked the wrong major.
Most instate Universities with room and board are around $18,000/yr. So, a 4 year degree is in the neighborhood of $72,000. I don't know what mid-size cars you drive, but that's pretty steep. College has become anything but more affordable. If it had been, there would have been less need for student loans, not more.
It has nothing to do with the major one picks (although some majors do not gain one an advantage in employment). 40 years ago, a college degree in business allowed one to jump into middle management. Today, it is pretty much standard for administrative assistants to have one. Yes, today's administrative assistatns do more than yesterday's secretaries and stenographers, but $72,000 worth of education more?
No, the system is broke, because somebod confused correlation and causation 40 years ago when the push for everybody to have an education really took off. Yes, people with degrees made more money than those without back then, but without all of today's financial aid, many of those people attending college already had a socio-economic advantage. Yes, there is no doubt that in certain fields it really did make a difference, but in most, we all knew the doctor's kid was going to get a better job with or without college than the farmer's kid was.
But, with all the best intentions, after misidentifying the real problem, we through billions of dollars at it so that today, many, many people have a college education, but the doctor's kid still gets the better job than the farmer's kid, because often it's not about what you know, but who you know that makes the difference.
I've heard of 1 based counting (0,1,2,3,4, etc)
I've heard of 2 based counting (0,2,4,6,8, etc)
I've heard of 5 and 10 based counting (0,5,10,15, etc. or 0,10, 20, 30, etc.)
and so on,
but wouldn't 0 based counting just give you 0,0,0,0,0?
This is a myth. Please stop presenting it as fact.
Indeed, what you describe is the very worst way in which you can treat any rechargeable battery.
Tesla, itslef states that battery life is dependent on the number of charge/discharge cycles and reccommends against frequent charging when the battery is relatively "full." Their circuitry prevents an overcharge, but does not stop the gradual breakdown at the poles that occur every time current is reversed through the battery. As such running your battery down 20% and recharging 4 times versus running down to 20% and charging once shortens the useful battery life.
Shortening the life does not mean that the battery will just quit working one day. It will mean that if you could get 160 miles on it new, you might only be getting 110 miles or even less. The battery still works, of course, but its usefulness for powering the vehicle comes sooner than planned.
It's not just multiple charges. High current quick charges also cause problems for Li+ batteries. They may be convenient at the time, because you don't have to wait overnight to charge the batteries, but you pay in the long run by shorter range and/or earlier replacement.
Maybe it is all a myth, but given the price of a tesla, I think I would still follow their advice on recharging.
reliability and durability should be higher with electric. Fewer moving parts. For what it's worth, Nissan and Toyota own the mid-size truck market.
If you treat the engine as a single unit in a vehicle, how many more moving parts are there in a standard vehicle? Both have suspensions and steering boxes and A/C compressors, etc. Yes, the engine has more moving parts internally, but really, for modern cars, that reliability is not an issue.
As for Nissan and Toyota owning the mid size truck market, well no shit! The others abandoned the market a long time ago.
Even an F-150 is overkill for that kind of thing; the Ranger would have been good enough.
Or a Subaru
6. Place a generator in the bed, and its almost as good as a real truck!
Actually, I would place a small diesel generator under the hood and forgo the batteries. An F150 (assuming it would be about that size) has enough space in the current engine compartment for a small generator and electric motor or you could use a motor per wheel design.
Basically, you would operate like a diesel locomotive, but on a smaller scale, with an alternator powering some type of traction motor. Size keeps this from working on cars, but a full size truck should work quite readily.
Not totally emmission free, but then neither is all electric, unless it is somehow charged off the grid as current power plants have emmissions, too.
I can see this selling to rednecks. Even they are going solar as opposed to having to deal with the grid.
A Tesla truck has a lot of nice advantages that would be useful, especially for rednecks:
1: Max torque at 0 RPM. This can be extremely handy.
2: No fuel needed, which is a good thing as there is a growing off-grid mentality. Even if the truck trickle charges on a 120VAC, 20A connection via a set of solar panels, it still will be useful. With a larger solar or wind array, a 440VAC charger can be used. Of course, with a redneck, they just sling a generator in the back if worried about range.
3: There is also a very useful feature of an electric pickup truck. Stick an inverter on the batteries, and you have a very large battery for running electric equipment and no obnoxious generator noise.
4: There are times when one idles a pickup truck due to needing heat or A/C. Idling an electric car takes up 0 fuel other than what is used for accessories.
5: Less noise and smell... easier on animals.
I'll give you point 1, although all of that torque, if there is a heavy load comes at the price of really draining the batteries, quite quickly.
Point 2 isn't feasible. unless some new undiscovered technology is found, all EVs suffer from reduced battery life the more the batteries are recharged. To get maximum battery life, you need recharge them when they are almost drained and bring them to a full charge. You probably aren't going to do this with a solar trickle charger and if you are going to haul around a solar array or a generator in the bed, then the truck won't be much use as a truck.
Point 3 and 4 are related. Any power used for other purposes is power not available for driving. Sure you can use the batteries to power mega-amps and a super sound system, but you better have power available to recharge the batteries and if you do have power available, then why use the batteries? Likewise running things like the A/C can quickly drain the batteries. Even on a regular car, it is amazing how much running the A/C compressor can put a load on the engine. In physics, work is work and whether powered by a gas motor or batteries, energy needs to be expended to run the AC. At least on a conventional car, the heat is virtually free as it is a waste product, but not so on an EV.
Point 5 is true, at least for the noise and smell. As for road kill, it probably makes no difference to the animals whether is a conventional or EV that hits them.
It probably doesn't hurt that (particularly among vocational users of pickups), more than a few of them are called upon to deliver a fair amount of cargo, than sit there, potentially charging, while the occupants do construction things or such with the cargo.
That is going to depend on whether or not the job site has a high amp charging station. One of the problems plaguing current EVs is that multiple partial charges shorten battery life. So, unless your EV truck is close to needing a full charge and you actually have the equipment and/or time to give it a full charge, charging it at the worksite could very well be reducing the uselife of the truck.
Ford stopped sale of all light trucks in the USA for CAFE reasons, so what reason did they give for cutting the EV that wouldn't be negatively affected by CAFE?
They may say it was for CAFE reasons but the reality is that it costs them about the same to build a Ranger as it does the F series, but they can charge a damn lot more for the F series. In the end, it's simple economics. The don't sell light trucks in the US because they are trying to maximize profits.
Yeah, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is news. It's been like this since the days of the grayscale Nokia phones. A phone that is turned of can still be located by the cell towers and it can in some cases be remotely turned on and used as a listening device. Back then security experts advised to remove the battery before you discussed secrets in a corporate or government setting, in order to avoid falling victim to espionage.
I guess it's just not very practical to follow that advice. Some government agencies and some corporations have probably installed jammers or shielding around certain meeting rooms in order to keep top meetings secure.
Probably because some very popular phones make it impossible to remove the batteries.
Because it's harder to exploit.
Did you know that inside EVERY SINGLE electronic circuit is an "OS" that is trusted for EVERYTHING? It's called "the laws of physics". If that circuit gets a signal to switch on, EVEN FROM A MALWARE AUTHOR, *it will switch*.
Worse, there's absolutely NO WAY to remove it!
QUICK! HIDE FROM THE PAEDO TAKING OVER YOUR COMPUTER!!!!
It doesn't even need a malware author. A stray electronic field is usually enough to flip the switch on or off or more likely completely burn it out.
Why stop there? Every cell phone also runs on an operating system called QM (quantum mechanics). Hack that and you can make the phone do all sorts of really cool things.
Just because the house has windows viewable by the public doesn't mean the public has the right to peer into your house to watch you prance around naked.
If you're prancing around naked, with the shades / curtains open, in a window visible from the street, it's not illegal to look at you from the street. If anything, you may be committing indecent exposure, if someone who sees you decides to complain about it and the police decide to do something about the complaint.
It's the same rules as being naked in your own backyard: If the neighbors see you, that's not their problem.
That is true, but it is illegal to walk up to the house and peer into the window through the gap between the shade and the sill, which is the point I was trying to make.