The sheet metal's changed but the CUCV is a direct descendent of the WC series.
Whatever. By that standard every vehicle driven today is "military grade" because every vehicle today has some lineage from a vehicle produced for the military in the 1940s.
Perhaps a 1970s era Dodge truck met the "military grade" standards of a 1940s military but that does not mean it met the standard of "military grade" in the 1970s. If the standard was to meet or exceed the standard for a military of any prior era then I can call a modern baseball bat "military grade" because at some time in the past early humans would be fighting each other with fallen tree branches they picked up off the forest floor.
The Dodge trucks of the 1970s did not meet the standards of "military grade". Proof of this is in that the US military had to make modifications to the truck before they could use it even in non-combat roles where the CUCVs were used.
As always, if you don't know a term because you are not in that industry, try Googling it before denigrating its meaning.
I grew up on a dairy farm and I had not ever seen the term "farm duty" before or since. I will say that I'm no expert on the workings of a farm, I mostly just milked the cows, baled the hay, and shoveled the shit.
"FARM DUTY motors are specially designed for applications requiring high starting torque and moderate starting current. Some standard features such as V-ring slinger in both drive and opposite drive ends, reversible shaft rotation and start capacitors provide versatility for indoor and outdoor use."
In other words its rated to run a feed auger. If that's what they mean then call it "auger rated". There were lots of things on our farm that had motors in them and not all of them required high starting torque. A ventilation fan isn't likely to have a high starting torque. An auger might need high starting torque, as might a compressor. A Google search on what "farm duty" means tells me that "compressor duty" is a thing.
We had all kinds of motors on the farm and as I recall they were simply outdoor rated heavy duty motors. Even the term "heavy duty" is relative and essentially meaningless. Either it meets the rated output or it doesn't. Perhaps "continuous duty" is what they meant by "heavy duty".
Apparently you're not aware of the actual history behind the Dodge Power Wagon.
Please enlighten me. How much commonality was there between the 1940s era Dodge military vehicles and the 1970s era Dodge CUCV? Looking at the vehicles I can see a lot changed in the 30 years between them. Just because Dodge kept using the Power Wagon name on a series of trucks does not mean the trucks maintained any "military grade" features during its 30 years on the civilian market.
Yes, that is a thing. If some elected numbskull says I can't have something because it's "mil-spec" then that person needs to be removed from office. I would also like to see them removed from the gene pool.
I was issued "mil-spec" earplugs in the Army. Does this mean I can't have the same kind of ear plugs now that I'm not in the Army any more? Construction battalions will be issued mil-spec steel toed boots, safety goggles, gloves, and again earplugs. If someone wanted to sell these same mil-spec items to civilians then should they be barred from doing so?
Lots of things are mil-spec, like nuts and bolts, socks, eyeglasses, stocking caps, tents, sleeping bags, adhesive tape, bandages. I have a mil-spec ruler on my desk. It's a real deal military surplus 6-inch ruler. I guess I shouldn't have this ruler because it was designed "for use on the battlefield". It is in fact a ruler designed for use on the battlefield, because sometimes it comes in handy to know how large of a hole just got blown into your APC and/or battle-buddy.
Here's my thought on mil-spec or "military grade", if the military can buy it then anyone else should be able to buy it.
I hear socialism defined as "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs". That means the young, strong, and talented work to provide for the old, weak, and unskilled. This sounds fair enough to most, perhaps charitable even.
But then who collects the products of the labors? Well, the government of course. Who hands out the resources? The government. Who determines who is capable of what? The government. Who determines a persons needs? The government.
In other words socialism is "the government takes and the government gives".
Now, who is the government? Who watches the watchmen? Most people don't like having their stuff taken away. If there is a vote then people will just vote to keep their stuff. Also likely is people will vote themselves other people's stuff. Socialism only works until you've spent all the money everyone else has.
I remember going to a Tractor Supply style store (people know what a Tractor Supply store is in California, don't they) with my brother. While walking through the hardware section we stopped to see that they had electric motors for sale, and out of curiosity we looked at what kind of motors they had. We'd see on the labels things like "outdoor rated" and "heavy duty". What I found memorable was a motor with "farm duty" on its label. I thought WTF does "farm duty" mean and pointed this silly label out to my brother. He just shrugged and said something like if you are a farmer then you buy a "farm duty" motor.
This is the same with "military grade", it is only a marketing gimmick. If someone wants to make something sound "scary" then its called "military grade". Some time in the 1970s the US military had a bunch of expensive jeeps that had a tendency to roll over. The older jeeps were all worn out and the HMMWV was still on the drawing board. To make up for the lack of "military grade" trucks the government just asked Dodge and GMC for some trucks they could make on the cheap. They slapped together some 1-ton "farm duty" trucks with a beefed up suspension (so it's now rated for 1-1/4 ton), 28-volt electrical system, and some OD green paint and sold them as "military grade" by the millions to US and foreign armies.
I hear politicians talk about how "military grade" weapons should remain only on the battlefield. Well, then let's do that. That means the police should not carry AR-15 rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, or "sniper" rifles. I took a computer security class from a gentleman that was a Marine scout/sniper prior to his semi-retirement as a security consultant. After class one day we chatted for a bit and I asked what kind of weapon he used as a sniper. He said a Remington Model 700. The Remington Model 700 is a bolt action rifle available at most any sporting goods store for less than a kilobuck, and that includes the scope. If "military grade" weapons belong on the battlefield then we should not be arming our police with "military grade" weapons like a bolt action rifle. The police should not have battlefield weapons like the Beretta M9, a semi-automatic pistol chambered in the 9mm (a caliber developed in 1902).
If "military grade" means a GMC 3500 with green paint and aftermarket shocks, a cheap bolt action rifle, and a pistol that was "high tech" a century ago, then what is left? Can I get a pump action shotgun? Nope, that's the M870. Even a $300 shotgun is off limits if we can't have "military grade" anything.
A genetic "failure" doesn't mean die, or even fail to reproduce. It can mean goes off to find a more suitable environment. It could also mean creating an environment more suitable to live in. Humans adapting to space will likely be a bit of all the above.
I agree that this is a contrived dilemma. But, IMHO, we can address this with treating the robots like people. If they hurt someone then they get confined, we'll build "robot jails". Capital crimes can be dealt with by destruction of the robot.
Perhaps it's not sufficient punishment for a corporation to lose a $100,000 robot for killing a person but it is a punishment that is consistent with laws of "personhood". It should send the right signals to the corporations, if your robot screws up then we take the robot from you. When (or if) you get it back it will be so old as to be worthless.
As asked in the article, what would happen if a robot was put on trial? No robot can defend itself, it would need an advocate. Presumably the person (corporate or flesh-n-bone) that owned it. What would be the argument, that the computer feels bad and won't do it again?
This concept of a vehicle as a person is not new. There's been this idea of large ships being a corporation on it's own, for reasons of liability such as raised here. This has come up before, and mocked in popular culture a few times that I recall. It's just not common because it costs money to create a corporation. What it seems these people want is just a cheaper and easier way to incorporate an inanimate object as a person. Maybe they could get it if they addressed it in the right way. I suspect that propping up a computer as a person is likely just the latest tactic, the others haven't been publicized as much.
Getting infrastructure built in the world's biggest democracy where a not-in-my-backyard culture proliferates is a barrier for a lot of businesses in India. And it is proving to be the same for charging stations - Ola was forced to close one in Nagpur last year after protests by residents angered by traffic jams caused by drivers. It took more than five months to get government clearances to begin operating another station.
Seems they want to blame this on democracy. Well, what's the solution then? Remove just "a little bit" of democracy? I have a problem with that. It's never "a little bit".
Maybe what they need is a government that can properly plan the roads and other infrastructure so the people won't complain. This is not something that can be forced by government. People have to want the electric cars. Paying people to take them, when there isn't sufficient infrastructure to support them, is going to create a distaste for them in the future. Traffic jams around charging stations is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. Had they allowed this to develop more naturally with market forces then this would not have happened. What they have now is perhaps an entire generation with a bad experience with electric vehicles, because they forced them on the market too soon.
The electric car industry may have just shot itself in the foot, and it may take decades before people lose the memory of this experience.
Good job! You may have just stalled the electric car industry in India by 20 years!
If the powers that be want more people to buy electric vehicles then build an electric vehicle that people would want to buy. It's really that simple.
But it's not that simple, is it? Because building an electric vehicle that people would want to buy is hard.
People don't burn petroleum because they want to pollute the air. They burn this stuff because that's how we get the lifestyle we all enjoy. There's no easy answer to this. Providing subsidies to buy electric vehicles are great for the people that get the subsidies, nut not necessarily for those that have to pay the taxes to fund them. These electric vehicle subsidies are a tax on the poor so the wealthy can buy a new electric vehicle. I believe that to be ethically problematic.
There's already quite the social and economic incentives to building and developing electric vehicles. People already buy electric vehicles as a social statement. People buy electric cars because they have advantages over those that burn hydrocarbons. We shouldn't have to pay people to buy them. If we want to see more people buy them then make them more awesome than they already are. Those that cannot do with anything less than a gasoline burner wouldn't buy an electric car if you paid them to. So, stop trying to pay people to buy electric cars.
Here's another problem, all electric vehicles do is transfer where the energy comes from. People will still need energy. We know how to synthesize hydrocarbons from electricity. This process is even more efficient if there's some heat added, such as that from burning wood or nuclear fission which are low carbon energy sources used to make electricity from heat already. Wherever this energy comes from for the electricity to charge these electric cars can also be used to synthesize hydrocarbons. Synthesizing hydrocarbons closes the carbon loop on burning those hydrocarbons, we won't be releasing more carbon into the environment from long separated off reservoirs deep in the earth. We can take the carbon from the air and water, make fuel from it, and when it's burned it goes into the air again for more fuel later. It's as carbon neutral as any electric car.
Synthetic fuels means no one needs a new car subsidy, even old cars become "green". Electricity capacity would have to be increased to compensate, but that would also be the case with electric vehicles. I'm not saying we should stop making electric vehicles. I'm saying that synthetic fuels needs development too. That's not going to happen if they have to compete with subsidized electric vehicles. The government is playing favorites in the market, and that's never good in the long run.
plus the ability for a car to accurately predict that your actually in a car compared to the smartphone which cant know this for sure...
Let's see, traveling 100 kph on an express motorway, probably in a car. But we can't know this for sure, the phone could be in someone's pocket while they are holding on to the hood and screaming for the driver to stop.
Early cruise control systems were sometimes quite dangerous, not always to the passengers but could cause damage to the engine or transmission. I remember cars having a hardwired switch on the dash to disable them, in addition to the software button on the steering wheel, because people learned not to trust them. They got "smarter" and today most will detect wheel slippage and not gun the engine if it hits a slippery spot in the road.
Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel and the front wheels could still be on a slick surface which can send the vehicle flying uncontrolled.
Cruise control is very safe, especially newer ones that integrate with a traction control, but a claim that they never fail catastrophically is provably false.
The cost of solar is declining steadily. The cost of nuclear has been rising for decades.
Sure, and the two may eventually meet in the middle somewhere. With solar energy costs being double that of nuclear it's going to take a while for solar to be cheaper than nuclear. Assuming it ever happens, nuclear should get cheaper as experience grows.
I've become tired of the lies from solar advocates. There was a number of prominent stories about the solar waste problem on this website called "Slashdot", perhaps you've heard of it? Solar power has a waste problem far worse than nuclear. Go look up the stories, you shouldn't have to look far.
Claiming solar power doesn't rely on subsidies is laughable. Also laughable is the decommissioning costs for solar. Again this is well documented.
Solar power has been a money pit for a very long time. Nuclear power works if people would just let someone actually build them. Too many watched "China Syndrome" and thought it was a documentary. It's fear mongering bullshit that has nothing to do with the current state of technology.
Two problems: First, the source you have is from 2012. That is more than 5 years in the past, and development has been very dynamic.
More recent data still shows China lagging behind. China has about 80 GW of solar capacity as of 2016 or 2017. USA has about 40 GW, as does Germany and Japan. USA has 1/4 the population of China, Germany and Japan less than 1/10th each.
And secondly, China uses a lot less energy per capita than the US. If you correct for that, in 2012, the US had 4 times more solar capacity per capita, but used 3.5 times more energy per capita. In relative terms, the US is slightly ahead. But in absolute terms, the US needed to produce a lot more non-solar per capita to make up the difference in usage.
I'm not sure I should care if China uses less energy per person. We're doing really well here in the USA in large part because of the energy we consume. I'm sitting comfortably in my heated basement office as I type this, which takes energy. If we are using clean nuclear energy then the impact on the environment is quite minimal. Using natural gas means far lower impact than coal. Wind is a great source of energy out here in the Great Plains. China is far worse for the environment, on a total and per capita basis, than the USA so using less energy per person only makes them a far worse polluter than the USA.
China is not a leader on this, even though they may possess more solar power capacity than any two nations combined. Holding them up as some kind of example is misleading or disingenuous. I'd think they should be looking towards us as an example to follow, not the other way around.
The MagSafe work-alike I have came from Griffin Technology and works about as well as the old MagSafe connector from Apple. Like MagSafe it comes loose a bit too easily, which can be annoying. Unlike MagSafe it's orientation dependent, the magnetic connection can't be flipped over if there's some twisting tension that can make the connection come loose. This is easily addressed though by flipping over the USB-C connector. It's a "dumb" cable and so is limited to 60 watts like any passive USB-C cable, but that's not a big deal either. If I had a laptop that needed more power then this might be an issue. Sounds like 100 watt capable cables like it will be offered soon, by both Griffin and competitors. It provides no data connection, which I consider a good thing now that I hear of power supplies that try to grab data from laptops, it passes power only and so offers protection from such things.
China has 85GW of solar power installed. That is far more than any other country.
Being the most populous nation in the world I'd expect them to have the most solar power. Perhaps given their ranking as being the third largest country by area, and second largest economy, I'd expect them to be in the top 3 or perhaps top 10. The problem though is that they suck on solar power based on population.
Rankings by solar power capacity per capita doesn't even put China in the top 20. Based on current growth they might get in the top 10 soon but can they keep growing at the current rate? Will the rest of the world also not improve their solar power deployments?
How much does that cost? What's the carbon footprint of all that steel and aluminum?
Then there is the problem of having access to enough sun to meet the demand for electricity. The USA might be able to pull this off. What of Japan? Or, UK? I'm sure someone will want to bring up off shore windmills. How much does that cost? What's the carbon footprint? What happens if a hostile neighboring nation decides to start sinking windmills and cutting undersea power lines?
Nothing has a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear, except maybe hydro. Nothing is cheaper than nuclear except fossil fuels and maybe wind. Nothing is safer than nuclear.
Solar is expensive and is not all that great on it's carbon footprint, at least compared to nuclear, wind, and hydro. Solar is intermittent and requires locations with lots of sun. Addressing that with batteries, thermal storage, and long power lines, only adds to the not all that great costs and carbon footprint. Mixing it with wind and hydro still means using energy that's often more expensive than nuclear, has a larger carbon footprint than nuclear, still requires long power lines and/or storage (further adding to the cost and carbon footprint).
Does this mean we should use only nuclear? No, but it does mean using it as a major energy source. Maybe wind and solar will win in the future, until that happens we need to use something else. That means nuclear or coal.
Nuclear power can use HVDC too, you know that don't you? If you don't want nuclear in your backyard then put it in mine.
Thermal solar is expensive, and the falling cost of PV solar is pricing it out of the market. The "storage" feature of thermal solar is mostly pointless since daytime electricity is generally worth MORE than nighttime electricity. So it is more cost effective to just feed power into the grid rather than store it.
That's only true so long as there are reliable energy sources on the grid to go with the solar. Right now, today, that means natural gas. Not the efficient boilers either, but turbines typically used for meeting peak demands. That means twice the carbon footprint, and twice the cost to the consumer, of a boiler. You will need some kind of storage if solar (or other unreliable energy source) is going to be more than perhaps 20% of electrical supply. Right now, today, storage means hydro. There are a few battery storage systems, and solar thermal storage, but for the most part its hydro. If there are no dams around then there's the high cost, carbon footprint, and land usage for storage. Right now nuclear needs storage too, at least until we figure out how to make it load follow like natural gas turbines. Any advancements in storage benefit nuclear as much as, or perhaps even more than, solar.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro that's got to be near 10 years old now. I dropped it and broke the optical drive and latch. I dropped it again, breaking the replacement optical drive. The original battery died, then I replaced it, and the replacement died. It now sits on my desk because I got tired of buying batteries. No one makes a replacement as good as the original.
I bought a new MacBook Pro a few months ago, we'll see if I can avoid dropping this one and breaking something. The one thing that concerns me is the battery. The technology on batteries improved considerably, if the battery lasts ten years then I'll keep carrying that laptop. Even then with USB-C power bricks being a thing now, and Apple dropping MagSafe for USB-C, I can expect to be able to find power for this new MacBook Pro in 10 years. I got a USB-C power cord with a magnetic breakaway connector so I could get my MagSafe back.
My phones have lasted about 5 years, I'd guess, except my last one. That one went through the wash from leaving it in my jeans pocket. Previous ones were worn out or so old my provider PAID ME to upgrade.
I don't have an iPad but my iPods lasted a very long time. Like most of my electronics they are used until I break them. My last iPod Touch was about 6 years old went it met a concrete floor from a 5 foot drop, putting cracks in the screen. It still works but the touch screen is difficult to read and doesn't track finger movements well. I still use it once in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
The sheet metal's changed but the CUCV is a direct descendent of the WC series.
Whatever. By that standard every vehicle driven today is "military grade" because every vehicle today has some lineage from a vehicle produced for the military in the 1940s.
Perhaps a 1970s era Dodge truck met the "military grade" standards of a 1940s military but that does not mean it met the standard of "military grade" in the 1970s. If the standard was to meet or exceed the standard for a military of any prior era then I can call a modern baseball bat "military grade" because at some time in the past early humans would be fighting each other with fallen tree branches they picked up off the forest floor.
The Dodge trucks of the 1970s did not meet the standards of "military grade". Proof of this is in that the US military had to make modifications to the truck before they could use it even in non-combat roles where the CUCVs were used.
As always, if you don't know a term because you are not in that industry, try Googling it before denigrating its meaning.
I grew up on a dairy farm and I had not ever seen the term "farm duty" before or since. I will say that I'm no expert on the workings of a farm, I mostly just milked the cows, baled the hay, and shoveled the shit.
"FARM DUTY motors are specially designed for applications requiring high starting torque and moderate starting current. Some standard features such as V-ring slinger in both drive and opposite drive ends, reversible shaft rotation and start capacitors provide versatility for indoor and outdoor use."
In other words its rated to run a feed auger. If that's what they mean then call it "auger rated". There were lots of things on our farm that had motors in them and not all of them required high starting torque. A ventilation fan isn't likely to have a high starting torque. An auger might need high starting torque, as might a compressor. A Google search on what "farm duty" means tells me that "compressor duty" is a thing.
We had all kinds of motors on the farm and as I recall they were simply outdoor rated heavy duty motors. Even the term "heavy duty" is relative and essentially meaningless. Either it meets the rated output or it doesn't. Perhaps "continuous duty" is what they meant by "heavy duty".
Apparently you're not aware of the actual history behind the Dodge Power Wagon.
Please enlighten me. How much commonality was there between the 1940s era Dodge military vehicles and the 1970s era Dodge CUCV? Looking at the vehicles I can see a lot changed in the 30 years between them. Just because Dodge kept using the Power Wagon name on a series of trucks does not mean the trucks maintained any "military grade" features during its 30 years on the civilian market.
In fairness, there is something called mil spec.
Yes, that is a thing. If some elected numbskull says I can't have something because it's "mil-spec" then that person needs to be removed from office. I would also like to see them removed from the gene pool.
I was issued "mil-spec" earplugs in the Army. Does this mean I can't have the same kind of ear plugs now that I'm not in the Army any more? Construction battalions will be issued mil-spec steel toed boots, safety goggles, gloves, and again earplugs. If someone wanted to sell these same mil-spec items to civilians then should they be barred from doing so?
Lots of things are mil-spec, like nuts and bolts, socks, eyeglasses, stocking caps, tents, sleeping bags, adhesive tape, bandages. I have a mil-spec ruler on my desk. It's a real deal military surplus 6-inch ruler. I guess I shouldn't have this ruler because it was designed "for use on the battlefield". It is in fact a ruler designed for use on the battlefield, because sometimes it comes in handy to know how large of a hole just got blown into your APC and/or battle-buddy.
Here's my thought on mil-spec or "military grade", if the military can buy it then anyone else should be able to buy it.
I hear socialism defined as "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs". That means the young, strong, and talented work to provide for the old, weak, and unskilled. This sounds fair enough to most, perhaps charitable even.
But then who collects the products of the labors? Well, the government of course. Who hands out the resources? The government. Who determines who is capable of what? The government. Who determines a persons needs? The government.
In other words socialism is "the government takes and the government gives".
Now, who is the government? Who watches the watchmen? Most people don't like having their stuff taken away. If there is a vote then people will just vote to keep their stuff. Also likely is people will vote themselves other people's stuff. Socialism only works until you've spent all the money everyone else has.
I remember going to a Tractor Supply style store (people know what a Tractor Supply store is in California, don't they) with my brother. While walking through the hardware section we stopped to see that they had electric motors for sale, and out of curiosity we looked at what kind of motors they had. We'd see on the labels things like "outdoor rated" and "heavy duty". What I found memorable was a motor with "farm duty" on its label. I thought WTF does "farm duty" mean and pointed this silly label out to my brother. He just shrugged and said something like if you are a farmer then you buy a "farm duty" motor.
This is the same with "military grade", it is only a marketing gimmick. If someone wants to make something sound "scary" then its called "military grade". Some time in the 1970s the US military had a bunch of expensive jeeps that had a tendency to roll over. The older jeeps were all worn out and the HMMWV was still on the drawing board. To make up for the lack of "military grade" trucks the government just asked Dodge and GMC for some trucks they could make on the cheap. They slapped together some 1-ton "farm duty" trucks with a beefed up suspension (so it's now rated for 1-1/4 ton), 28-volt electrical system, and some OD green paint and sold them as "military grade" by the millions to US and foreign armies.
I hear politicians talk about how "military grade" weapons should remain only on the battlefield. Well, then let's do that. That means the police should not carry AR-15 rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, or "sniper" rifles. I took a computer security class from a gentleman that was a Marine scout/sniper prior to his semi-retirement as a security consultant. After class one day we chatted for a bit and I asked what kind of weapon he used as a sniper. He said a Remington Model 700. The Remington Model 700 is a bolt action rifle available at most any sporting goods store for less than a kilobuck, and that includes the scope. If "military grade" weapons belong on the battlefield then we should not be arming our police with "military grade" weapons like a bolt action rifle. The police should not have battlefield weapons like the Beretta M9, a semi-automatic pistol chambered in the 9mm (a caliber developed in 1902).
If "military grade" means a GMC 3500 with green paint and aftermarket shocks, a cheap bolt action rifle, and a pistol that was "high tech" a century ago, then what is left? Can I get a pump action shotgun? Nope, that's the M870. Even a $300 shotgun is off limits if we can't have "military grade" anything.
You know the rule: Not true until the US government denies it.
Has the government denied global warming yet?
A genetic "failure" doesn't mean die, or even fail to reproduce. It can mean goes off to find a more suitable environment. It could also mean creating an environment more suitable to live in. Humans adapting to space will likely be a bit of all the above.
I agree that this is a contrived dilemma. But, IMHO, we can address this with treating the robots like people. If they hurt someone then they get confined, we'll build "robot jails". Capital crimes can be dealt with by destruction of the robot.
Perhaps it's not sufficient punishment for a corporation to lose a $100,000 robot for killing a person but it is a punishment that is consistent with laws of "personhood". It should send the right signals to the corporations, if your robot screws up then we take the robot from you. When (or if) you get it back it will be so old as to be worthless.
As asked in the article, what would happen if a robot was put on trial? No robot can defend itself, it would need an advocate. Presumably the person (corporate or flesh-n-bone) that owned it. What would be the argument, that the computer feels bad and won't do it again?
This concept of a vehicle as a person is not new. There's been this idea of large ships being a corporation on it's own, for reasons of liability such as raised here. This has come up before, and mocked in popular culture a few times that I recall. It's just not common because it costs money to create a corporation. What it seems these people want is just a cheaper and easier way to incorporate an inanimate object as a person. Maybe they could get it if they addressed it in the right way. I suspect that propping up a computer as a person is likely just the latest tactic, the others haven't been publicized as much.
From the article linked in parent:
Getting infrastructure built in the world's biggest democracy where a not-in-my-backyard culture proliferates is a barrier for a lot of businesses in India. And it is proving to be the same for charging stations - Ola was forced to close one in Nagpur last year after protests by residents angered by traffic jams caused by drivers. It took more than five months to get government clearances to begin operating another station.
Seems they want to blame this on democracy. Well, what's the solution then? Remove just "a little bit" of democracy? I have a problem with that. It's never "a little bit".
Maybe what they need is a government that can properly plan the roads and other infrastructure so the people won't complain. This is not something that can be forced by government. People have to want the electric cars. Paying people to take them, when there isn't sufficient infrastructure to support them, is going to create a distaste for them in the future. Traffic jams around charging stations is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. Had they allowed this to develop more naturally with market forces then this would not have happened. What they have now is perhaps an entire generation with a bad experience with electric vehicles, because they forced them on the market too soon.
The electric car industry may have just shot itself in the foot, and it may take decades before people lose the memory of this experience.
Good job! You may have just stalled the electric car industry in India by 20 years!
If the powers that be want more people to buy electric vehicles then build an electric vehicle that people would want to buy. It's really that simple.
But it's not that simple, is it? Because building an electric vehicle that people would want to buy is hard.
People don't burn petroleum because they want to pollute the air. They burn this stuff because that's how we get the lifestyle we all enjoy. There's no easy answer to this. Providing subsidies to buy electric vehicles are great for the people that get the subsidies, nut not necessarily for those that have to pay the taxes to fund them. These electric vehicle subsidies are a tax on the poor so the wealthy can buy a new electric vehicle. I believe that to be ethically problematic.
There's already quite the social and economic incentives to building and developing electric vehicles. People already buy electric vehicles as a social statement. People buy electric cars because they have advantages over those that burn hydrocarbons. We shouldn't have to pay people to buy them. If we want to see more people buy them then make them more awesome than they already are. Those that cannot do with anything less than a gasoline burner wouldn't buy an electric car if you paid them to. So, stop trying to pay people to buy electric cars.
Here's another problem, all electric vehicles do is transfer where the energy comes from. People will still need energy. We know how to synthesize hydrocarbons from electricity. This process is even more efficient if there's some heat added, such as that from burning wood or nuclear fission which are low carbon energy sources used to make electricity from heat already. Wherever this energy comes from for the electricity to charge these electric cars can also be used to synthesize hydrocarbons. Synthesizing hydrocarbons closes the carbon loop on burning those hydrocarbons, we won't be releasing more carbon into the environment from long separated off reservoirs deep in the earth. We can take the carbon from the air and water, make fuel from it, and when it's burned it goes into the air again for more fuel later. It's as carbon neutral as any electric car.
Synthetic fuels means no one needs a new car subsidy, even old cars become "green". Electricity capacity would have to be increased to compensate, but that would also be the case with electric vehicles. I'm not saying we should stop making electric vehicles. I'm saying that synthetic fuels needs development too. That's not going to happen if they have to compete with subsidized electric vehicles. The government is playing favorites in the market, and that's never good in the long run.
Does this mean that jay walkers will be electrocuted?
Yes. Of course.
You didn't read the article I linked to, did you? I'm quite certain you haven't otherwise you would not have made that comment.
Do you close your eyes and think of England?
Yes, but can we be sure of his velocity?
plus the ability for a car to accurately predict that your actually in a car compared to the smartphone which cant know this for sure...
Let's see, traveling 100 kph on an express motorway, probably in a car. But we can't know this for sure, the phone could be in someone's pocket while they are holding on to the hood and screaming for the driver to stop.
Perhaps the "neural net" became self aware and saw humans as a threat. Saw that in a movie once.
Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.
Actually it can and does. Cruise control in slippery conditions can put a car into a dangerous condition.
Here's one citation, I'm sure anyone can find more:
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
Early cruise control systems were sometimes quite dangerous, not always to the passengers but could cause damage to the engine or transmission. I remember cars having a hardwired switch on the dash to disable them, in addition to the software button on the steering wheel, because people learned not to trust them. They got "smarter" and today most will detect wheel slippage and not gun the engine if it hits a slippery spot in the road.
Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel and the front wheels could still be on a slick surface which can send the vehicle flying uncontrolled.
Cruise control is very safe, especially newer ones that integrate with a traction control, but a claim that they never fail catastrophically is provably false.
The cost of solar is declining steadily. The cost of nuclear has been rising for decades.
Sure, and the two may eventually meet in the middle somewhere. With solar energy costs being double that of nuclear it's going to take a while for solar to be cheaper than nuclear. Assuming it ever happens, nuclear should get cheaper as experience grows.
I've become tired of the lies from solar advocates. There was a number of prominent stories about the solar waste problem on this website called "Slashdot", perhaps you've heard of it? Solar power has a waste problem far worse than nuclear. Go look up the stories, you shouldn't have to look far.
Claiming solar power doesn't rely on subsidies is laughable. Also laughable is the decommissioning costs for solar. Again this is well documented.
Solar power has been a money pit for a very long time. Nuclear power works if people would just let someone actually build them. Too many watched "China Syndrome" and thought it was a documentary. It's fear mongering bullshit that has nothing to do with the current state of technology.
Two problems: First, the source you have is from 2012. That is more than 5 years in the past, and development has been very dynamic.
More recent data still shows China lagging behind. China has about 80 GW of solar capacity as of 2016 or 2017. USA has about 40 GW, as does Germany and Japan. USA has 1/4 the population of China, Germany and Japan less than 1/10th each.
And secondly, China uses a lot less energy per capita than the US. If you correct for that, in 2012, the US had 4 times more solar capacity per capita, but used 3.5 times more energy per capita. In relative terms, the US is slightly ahead. But in absolute terms, the US needed to produce a lot more non-solar per capita to make up the difference in usage.
I'm not sure I should care if China uses less energy per person. We're doing really well here in the USA in large part because of the energy we consume. I'm sitting comfortably in my heated basement office as I type this, which takes energy. If we are using clean nuclear energy then the impact on the environment is quite minimal. Using natural gas means far lower impact than coal. Wind is a great source of energy out here in the Great Plains. China is far worse for the environment, on a total and per capita basis, than the USA so using less energy per person only makes them a far worse polluter than the USA.
China is not a leader on this, even though they may possess more solar power capacity than any two nations combined. Holding them up as some kind of example is misleading or disingenuous. I'd think they should be looking towards us as an example to follow, not the other way around.
The MagSafe work-alike I have came from Griffin Technology and works about as well as the old MagSafe connector from Apple. Like MagSafe it comes loose a bit too easily, which can be annoying. Unlike MagSafe it's orientation dependent, the magnetic connection can't be flipped over if there's some twisting tension that can make the connection come loose. This is easily addressed though by flipping over the USB-C connector. It's a "dumb" cable and so is limited to 60 watts like any passive USB-C cable, but that's not a big deal either. If I had a laptop that needed more power then this might be an issue. Sounds like 100 watt capable cables like it will be offered soon, by both Griffin and competitors. It provides no data connection, which I consider a good thing now that I hear of power supplies that try to grab data from laptops, it passes power only and so offers protection from such things.
In short, I'd recommend it.
All the same things can be said of solar.
China has 85GW of solar power installed. That is far more than any other country.
Being the most populous nation in the world I'd expect them to have the most solar power. Perhaps given their ranking as being the third largest country by area, and second largest economy, I'd expect them to be in the top 3 or perhaps top 10. The problem though is that they suck on solar power based on population.
https://cleantechnica.com/2013...
Rankings by solar power capacity per capita doesn't even put China in the top 20. Based on current growth they might get in the top 10 soon but can they keep growing at the current rate? Will the rest of the world also not improve their solar power deployments?
HVDC
How much does that cost? What's the carbon footprint of all that steel and aluminum?
Then there is the problem of having access to enough sun to meet the demand for electricity. The USA might be able to pull this off. What of Japan? Or, UK? I'm sure someone will want to bring up off shore windmills. How much does that cost? What's the carbon footprint? What happens if a hostile neighboring nation decides to start sinking windmills and cutting undersea power lines?
Nothing has a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear, except maybe hydro. Nothing is cheaper than nuclear except fossil fuels and maybe wind. Nothing is safer than nuclear.
Solar is expensive and is not all that great on it's carbon footprint, at least compared to nuclear, wind, and hydro. Solar is intermittent and requires locations with lots of sun. Addressing that with batteries, thermal storage, and long power lines, only adds to the not all that great costs and carbon footprint. Mixing it with wind and hydro still means using energy that's often more expensive than nuclear, has a larger carbon footprint than nuclear, still requires long power lines and/or storage (further adding to the cost and carbon footprint).
Does this mean we should use only nuclear? No, but it does mean using it as a major energy source. Maybe wind and solar will win in the future, until that happens we need to use something else. That means nuclear or coal.
Nuclear power can use HVDC too, you know that don't you? If you don't want nuclear in your backyard then put it in mine.
Thermal solar is expensive, and the falling cost of PV solar is pricing it out of the market. The "storage" feature of thermal solar is mostly pointless since daytime electricity is generally worth MORE than nighttime electricity. So it is more cost effective to just feed power into the grid rather than store it.
That's only true so long as there are reliable energy sources on the grid to go with the solar. Right now, today, that means natural gas. Not the efficient boilers either, but turbines typically used for meeting peak demands. That means twice the carbon footprint, and twice the cost to the consumer, of a boiler. You will need some kind of storage if solar (or other unreliable energy source) is going to be more than perhaps 20% of electrical supply. Right now, today, storage means hydro. There are a few battery storage systems, and solar thermal storage, but for the most part its hydro. If there are no dams around then there's the high cost, carbon footprint, and land usage for storage. Right now nuclear needs storage too, at least until we figure out how to make it load follow like natural gas turbines. Any advancements in storage benefit nuclear as much as, or perhaps even more than, solar.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro that's got to be near 10 years old now. I dropped it and broke the optical drive and latch. I dropped it again, breaking the replacement optical drive. The original battery died, then I replaced it, and the replacement died. It now sits on my desk because I got tired of buying batteries. No one makes a replacement as good as the original.
I bought a new MacBook Pro a few months ago, we'll see if I can avoid dropping this one and breaking something. The one thing that concerns me is the battery. The technology on batteries improved considerably, if the battery lasts ten years then I'll keep carrying that laptop. Even then with USB-C power bricks being a thing now, and Apple dropping MagSafe for USB-C, I can expect to be able to find power for this new MacBook Pro in 10 years. I got a USB-C power cord with a magnetic breakaway connector so I could get my MagSafe back.
My phones have lasted about 5 years, I'd guess, except my last one. That one went through the wash from leaving it in my jeans pocket. Previous ones were worn out or so old my provider PAID ME to upgrade.
I don't have an iPad but my iPods lasted a very long time. Like most of my electronics they are used until I break them. My last iPod Touch was about 6 years old went it met a concrete floor from a 5 foot drop, putting cracks in the screen. It still works but the touch screen is difficult to read and doesn't track finger movements well. I still use it once in a while.