And my diesel can 'charge' in 1-2 minutes, even on the move, gets 600 miles to the tank, gets better MPG than a typical hybrid and hosts about 1/5th as much.
Electrical cars are a dead end. If you're calling 3 hours 'good' you're disconnected from reality.
The Model S (at 5+ legal highway speeds here in most of urban/suburban NY) would run for 5 hours (and require 45 minutes to charge).
So, what you are saying is that you drive for more than 5 hours a day - and thus electric cars (like the Model S) are a dead end?
Even if you drive more than 5 hours/300 miles a day, you are far from the norm. Even when I commuted from Long Island to White Plains, NY; I was only driving 130 miles a day. If I decided to go out with friends (yeah, I have a few, really) those nights, I'd still be under 200 miles in a day.
Except for the "we go on driving vacations every day" crowd, I see it unlikely that these constraints mean much to anyone else. Heck, even a worker who drove around for a living wouldnt (or would rarely) exceed 300 miles in a day - 8 hours, minus 1 hour lunch, minus let's say (15 minutes a stop x 10 stops) exceeds an 8 hour work day - and would mean 300 miles of total driving between stops.
Your example means nothing when discussed in terms of the reality of driving.
Now, factor in the fuel cost. The electric ends up being cheaper per mile than your 600 miles to the tank car.
Now factor in your "hosts (sic) about 1/5th as much" statement. So... your car cost $10K new? The Model S is supposed to cost $50K new.
Then factor in their BlueStar vehicle (next to be produced) which should cost in the $30K area.
Have you yet to see how little sense your post actually makes? On top of all that, the more models and cars Tesla produces, the cheaper they get. I'd say in a few years (or less with just a fraction of what the govt gave GM going to Tesla) that their electric line will have cars in the $20K-$25K range.
So, why is a 3 hour charge (or the 45 minute charge on the Model S) a problem? What is so difficult about plugging in your car at night and unplugging it in the morning?
But Top Gear pointed out that once you deplete the battery, you have to charge it all night before you can use it again (I think the exact time was 14 hours).
Either you are misreading the TopGear review, or they are mis-citing the charge time.
The Roadster takes 4 hours to charge. Not bad at all unless you plan on driving more than 300 miles a day (tested range is showing about 290 miles per charge).
The Model S takes 45 minutes to charge - and it's planned range is 300 miles. So, if the Roadster's planned range is 240 and it gets closer to 300... and the Model S's planned range is 300...
Either way, at 300 miles a charge, 45 minutes - or even 4 hours, isnt much at all.
Of course, the thing you (mis?)remember reading may have been charge time when plugged into a standard 110V outlet (as opposed to being plugged into the "Home Charger" unit which charges a lot quicker).
I didnt realize that cell phones talked directly to each other...;-)
But yes, I was talking fixed line phones - since the post I was responding to was - (and the general discussion was talking about VOIP calls - which are usually made from some sort of fixed line connection (Internet from someplace, going through a wire or cable)).
And here, there are a few mobile carriers - they each talk about the wonderful network they use - but yet again, many share the same one(s).
Regardless, they get routed from cell to tower to... ???... to cell/landline/VOIP phone.
In the US, I was not aware there were multiple phone companies. Wow, you learn something new every day. Last I heard, there was "The Bell Companies" (under a plethora of names - yet still really one massive interrelated entity).
Then... there are a bunch of phone service resellers; who sell either access onto Bell's phone network (they dont own their own after all) via their POC routers, or Bell's; followed by VOIP providers who still largely have to have their calls transferred onto the Bell phone network for delivery to the non VOIP caller (ie: VOIP->landline call or landline->VOIP call).
And even long distance calls via a carrier that has their own lines, still gets transferred to the local lines, computers and telco switches for delivery to the home(s).
So, as far as I can see, it's VOIP->VOIP that's the only other option to not going through the one telco monopoly in this country.
You are very incorrect. What you are making is a lantern - not a bomb. You are blocking/limiting the air flow into the tank, and pulling the gasoline through the rag to the oxygen rich(er) area where it burns. Same principle used in gas/oil lanterns/lamps for ages. Remove the cloth, drop a match in the tank through the opening, and watch the gas catch fire, wait for the "woosh" of it sucking air through the opening until (1) enough gas is burned out for the needed air volume, (2) more of the gas is vaporized in the tank due to the heat and (3) the tank explodes.
The same thing happens in certain structure fires. When a room loses it's "airtight" nature, a fire will flare up or a room will explode. It's thus also part of the danger of opening doors in a structure that is on fire.
And nowadays with non-metal tanks, the chance of a larger breach forming (due to heat and/or flame) is larger - making explosion potential larger (ie: it becomes a "battle" to see if enough of the tank will melt to disperse the gasoline over a larger area before it explodes due to the inflow of air).
Either way, you have either a big, hot fire; or a nice explosion with a big hot fire. Thus, either way, it isnt a pretty scene.
Secondly - the difference between laptop li-ion batteries and a car gas tank is the tank has a very very tough metal wall separating the reactants (gasoline and air), while the laptop battery only has thin films.
Really? By "very very tough metal wall separating the reactants (gasoline and air)" you mean plastic or some similar non-metal gas tank used in various newer cars or in various aftermarket gas tank replacements, correct?
And, the metal ones used today are far from "very very tough" - I was just at a car accident two weeks ago where that "very very tough" metal gas tank was leaking all over the street from a relatively low speed impact.
Imagine twenty gallons of gasoline blowing up. Yikes!
There isn't enough oxygen in your gas tank to allow an explosion, batteries aren't as picky.
Well, if you have a 20 gallon tank, then maybe there isn't - initially. If you have let's say 10 gallons in a 20 gallon tank, there is plenty of oxygen in the tank (and who ever drives on a full tank all the time? If that were possible (a never emptying gas tank), we wouldn't need alternative power methods). And of course, if you have 20 gallons in a 20 gallon tank, once enough burns out through the rupture point, there's enough oxygen. Try it some time (go get a gas can, fill it, light it from the opening (the one you fill it through, or one you created) and see what happens --- note, this is not a good suggestion to follow unless you want to get hurt). It actually doesn't take that long for enough gas to burn out (and the emptied volume to be filled with enough air) for the tank to explode.
I see your point, but gasoline in a tank never blows up spontaneously. Li ion batteries are still a bit dicey, on occasion.
[humor]Guess you've never owned a Pinto.[/humor]
Seriously though, cheap, poorly produced batteries without the necessary safeguards spontaneously explode. Tesla seems to have opted for far better technology. Laptop batteries (the earlier example) rarely explode when you consider the sheer volume out there compared to the number of exploding batteries. If you remove the ones where the battery "manufacturers" decided to save a few bucks and go with a shoddy supplier, the number of exploding laptop or cell batteries is very very minimal - probably far less than the number of cars on the road that catch fire each year.
Here's why I think that. The majority of the cost of the Tesla cars (Roadster, Model S, etc) is the drivetrain and batteries - not the body. Thus Tesla is making the correct decision - making a car that appeals to a larger segment of the car buying market (The Model S and BlueStar), for a fraction more than a "Smart Car" version would be (which would be purchased by less people due to it's limited... well... everything (capacity, mileage, etc).
The Model S (I and think also the BlueStar), btw, will come in varying mileage ranges... standard battery config and extended battery config (the 300 mile range version). Regardless, they've already "re-innovated" their charging and/or battery setup as the Model S is supposed to charge in a fraction of the time that the Roadster does (and get better mileage).
So, instead you want them to make a Smart Car, with lower range (300km or 186miles)? Why not just buy a Smart Car instead of wanting them to get into a market that has a smaller segment of the population interested in it? Why in the world should they make another only semi-useful electric car when GM and gang are so good at that - when they can instead proceed in the direction they are going and make one far more useful? Where I live, millions of people commute to NYC every day for work - a Smart Car is barely - if - useful when a daily commute can be upwards of 120-150 miles.
Ummm... more like a luxury sedan than a family car... and a damn gorgeous one at that.
Regardless, most cars I see on the road here in NY are sedans.
Then again...I've never owned a car with more than 2 seats...always had 2 seat sports cars. Ok, technically the 911 turbo had 4 seats (R.I.P. Katrina), but, those weren't functional enough to count.
If you think your choice of cars is the norm, then I guess you haven't really driven much/ever, have you? How many two seaters do you see out there? While you may have exclusively owned 2 seaters, most of the rest of the US driving population does not.
More importantly, how many 2 seaters out there are economical anyway? Your 911 Turbo? The Corvette? A Ferrari?
A car for "the masses" has rarely - if ever - been a 2 seater. You're comparing apples to tomato sauce - or your purchase example is simply irrelevant to this discussion (and thus baffles me as to why you brought it up since it is thus out of context and not applicable to this discussion).
I just can't picture 'lusting' after something that looks like another Camry...with the only difference being that it is electrically powered.
Hmmm... even if it looked like "another Camry" (which seem to sell pretty well), then why wouldnt people be "lusting" after it? Let's see why they would... cheaper per mile travel, more "creature comforts", carries more passengers, less and/or cheaper general maintenance... just to name a few reasons.
But that's assuming it looked like a Camry - which it doesnt. Looks more like a high class luxury sedan (BMW, Benz, etc) - for which it's price is in line with it's competition.
The answers to that are: (somewhat more affordable, and for it's looks and features a great price) The Model S, and (a lot more affordable - getting there in price) the "BlueStar" - the last two of those getting better mileage than the Roadster - and the Model S being able to carry 7 people.
Now, if the government decides to... oh, I dunno... send Tesla Motors some money to mass produce these things - instead of (NOT talking bailout money) sending GM and others a lot of money for their *FAKE* *BULLSHIT* green initiatives... well, then mass production and even lower prices will be on their way.
Why do I call GM and gang's initiatives fake and bullshit you ask? Here are just a few reasons.
Tesla could figure out how to get 300 miles on a charge - but GM still says it isnt possible and the battery and charging technology doesn't exist (even though they have taken a crapload of money from the govt - plus their own supposed expenditures, to come up with such technology). How can a startup manage to do this in less time, having spent a lot less money - but GM and gang cant figure it out - and with the proof on the road (Roadsters already built and delivered) still claim it isnt possible (and somehow be taken seriously)?
Tesla has figured out how to make a usable car (range, passenger capacity - Model S), while GM and gang are playing with things that have neither the range or seating capacity - again all because they claim the technology doesnt exist (even though, again, Tesla has proven them wrong and spent a lot less money to do so).
Tesla has figured out how to make an attractive car (cars actually - the Roadster and Model S). Because, yes folks, no matter how good a car it is, most people will not buy it if it is ugly - just the way humans are). Yet GM (who has released such beauties as the Corvette, Camaro and various others) is struggling to make a car that looks appealing. If they are that out of ideas, they can simply hire another design team - not like they havent spent enough money to have paid for that numerous times over already.
I could go on and on... but, suffice to say, the big key here is, Tesla is on their way to making more affordable electric cars; that are attractive, long range, carry a lot of passengers, come with all the creature comforts and so on. What that leaves is for enough people to realize this and call GM and the other Big 2's bluff and pester the government to push those green car subsidies to Tesla instead with an agreement to truly mass produce their cheaper lines.
Of course, that wont happen - lots of lost tax revenues in gas/diesel sales if those things take off. At least until the government figures out how to tax drivers by the mile or by how much electricity they use to recharge their electric cars.
LoL... we're saying the same thing. And yeah, I found the whole BSA thing quite amusing since we were running virtually exclusively OS/2, 3 Macs, and a single Win2K machine (and owned 22 licenses).
Have you ever read some of the extortion letters they send? I got a series from Microsoft and the BSA once. Talking to a lawyer, they implied, was grounds for them rescinding their "generous offer" and taking legal action.
There was a list of other things that would cause them to do that as well... not sending them the detailed information they wanted, and so on. They also demanded entry into my premises to confirm such. No nothing indicating they had no legal right to enter my premises at will. No nothing indicating they had no case. I sent them back a letter telling them they were forbidden to ever step foot on my property - and if they did, I would have any representative of their arrested for criminal trespass. Then I sent them a list of all of the OS/2 installations I had - no Windows ones, and images of all the authentic, unused Windows licenses that we had - and advised them continued harrassment would be grounds for me initiating legal action against them.
Funny thing is, they knew we were running OS/2, and most have "assumed" (or been given wrong information by an "informant") that we had lotsa Windows machines. I know they knew that, because added to my arsenal against them, were logs from all of the machines showing probes coming from Microsoft.
Anyway, the point is, most people dont know what they can or cannot; should or should not; do in cases like this... and the extortion letters directly imply many things that you should not do if you want to make your situation worse (with plenty of legal speak to cover their asses telling you the exact opposite where required by law). So, many uniformed people get scared by the settlement letters and follow through as the RIAA wants.
And may soon here. There's currently a line that's getting blurrier every day as to what constitutes civil and criminal copyright infringement - and the RIAA (and MPAA) are actively trying to remove that line.
The other factor is, the "Big 4" gang that comprises the RIAA have similar entities in other countries that can continue their nonsense against the alleged infringers if they were to move to other countries. And being multi-national companies, they can file suit there as well. Of course a lot of that is dependent on what the copyright laws are in those countries - but as pointed out, some are as bad or worse than ours.
Here's the catch. Ever try to finish college with a judgement over your head? Ever try to keep your student loans for your last 2 or 3 years of college after that judgement has been filed (or worse, you've declared bankruptcy)? Or hope that the destruction of your credit (via the judgement or bankruptcy) wont prevent you from getting the job you want (many big employers now do credit checks)?
Or does mom and dad have to bail you out (pay the extortion fees to the RIAA) to ensure that you can continue to go to school and continue to get loans to pay your remaining years?
I dont think it's too much of a gamble on the part of the RIAA... and it is definitely a planned one.
Sadly, other than a reform of the DMCA, the only way I see such abuses stopping is for someone like Google to file a countersuit against the filers for filing frivolous claims. Enough of those go through, and I betcha that frivolous claims (at least against places like Google and Wikipedia) will drop off - and those considering making such frivolous claims against smaller entities will at least think twice.
You're forgetting that Win95 was installed via floppy.
Thus, doing the autodetection configuration during the installation should have been an easy thing. The installer is already accessing the floppy, it could write the config information to disk (or save it in memory) and then configure the autodetect routine accordingly. No user intervention required, and totally transparent.
Since it is such a simple solution to do this, I'm assuming that the code never worked to begin with, or MS just figured out how to do it.
If it took me (and how many others here on/.) only a few seconds to figure out how to do this transparently - and simpler/easier than by using a user prompt to "train" it, I cant believe MS couldnt think of it. I thus believe there were either (a) other problems that prevented the code from being usable and/or (b) they actually didnt have this figured out pre-Win95 release.
...because the only other scenario would be that the Win95 Dev Team is truly clueless - after all, with the stack of floppies required to install Win95, there are plenty of auto-config times available where no user intervention or prompts would be required to figure out which method worked with the floppy drive. (and no, I am not saying they are that clueless - I'm saying that assuming they aren't, my previous explanations are the only ones that make sense to me as to why they did not incorporate such functionality).
Another thing rarely mentioned, is that as these ice sheets and bergs break away and melt, it causes other climate changes. In very non-technical terms, water evaporation from ice is more difficult than water evaporation from a non-frozen state. The volume of unfrozen water is increasing.
Oh, and the various governments and organizations who monitor such have also noted a growing decrease in the ice sheets in and around the Arctic Circle/Canada.
Doesnt matter to me either way... I love swimming. (yes, that's humor - if only a poor attempt at it)
Yeah, when and where it becomes or is legal. It just (a few months ago) finally became legal in Islip, NY (up to 50ft turbine on residential properties, up to 75ft on commercial properties).
But that doesnt take into account that turbines (in the US) are still far more expensive than they need to be (compare overseas prices for either the same turbines, or similar rated/quality ones).
"The biggest wind potential lies off the nation's Atlantic coast, which the Interior report estimates could produce 1,000 gigawatts of electricity..."...when the wind's blowing.
Which, off the east coast, is virtually all the time. Today's wind turbines start at 7-9mph, and start generating at 9-12mph.
Unfortunately being somewhat fickle it doesn't always do that and when it doesn't you need backup generators. In fact you'd need to backup ALL the wind power generators with equal rating backup systems and since these would probably coal and/or nuclear which can't be started up and shut down on a whim and so need to run 24/7 anyway it makes a mockery of the whole enviromental argument for wind.
Or other storage techniques could be used - much akin to methods used currently with solar.
Not to mention the fact that we are getting closer and closer to using supercapacitors as batteries.
And thats before you get into power transmission issues - windy sites generally arn't near big cities.
While true, neither is Niagra Falls near where I live on Long Island - though some of our power is delivered from there. I think an off-shore wind turbine would be far closer to the shore than Niagra Falls is to me. Yes, there are other challenges when it comes to an ocean bed cable and such - but we've made some decent advances in that as well. With the right cables (utilizing newer techniques and technologies), and redundancy; this should be a minimal problem.
As a car driver, you could always do what near every other car driver does - put the car in park. One simple button press (look at the center console pictures).
As it is an electric car, there is no engine start time or hassle of fumbling for a key. To put the car in drive, no digging for the key - just hit the "D" button and you are in drive mode.
As a first responder, chances are you already have RFID tags to enter and exit your building and are more then competent at using them - except this one is easier - it never needs to leave your pocket.
And, as a first responder (amazed you admitted to such behavior on a public forum), you should know that maintaining safety on any accident scene is part of your responsibility - leaving any car in gear while off is a dangerous thing, as the car can roll. This should NEVER be an option for you. Every state I have dealt with has certain laws and guidelines that first responders must adhere to - you are clearly violating them in doing something so dangerous.
And finally, as a first responder, I would figure this would be a quicker, easier, method of speeding up your action times. In your unsafe scenario, you would have to put the car in park (shift a lever), reach for the key, start the car, put the car back in drive - all to simply be able to move the car to proceed to either another call or to the hospital or wherever. In this scenario, all you need to do is hit the "D" button. No reaching for a key, turning it, and then changing gears to drive.
Your unsafe, and possibly illegal (or at the least, against the requirements and guidelines for first repsonders) is actually slower than what this car would allow.
I know in this state, first responders who endanger the safety at a scene can be reprimanded, suspended, fined or "fired" or in the case of worse (such as a secondary accident based on them making the scene even more unsafe) can face far worse.
Add-ins are the "killer app" of the browser for me.
Then you should LOVE IE... with IE, add-ons are the "killer app" for the Operating System
;-)
I don't think I'll ever switch from Firefox if competing browsers don't have this feature built into it. I just couldn't live without stuff like foxmarks, flagfox, customisegoogle, etc..
Nor will I.
Yeah, IE8 can render pages faster but who really cares when pages render in a matter of seconds in any of the browsers on the market. 1 or 2 second difference means nothing to me. Add-ins mean alot to me and are the defining feature and without them it makes IE an inferior browser to Firefox.
Well, when I see more unbiased comparisons (not MS sponsored ones), and when I see it compared to the latest (and faster) betas of FF and Chrome and Safari, then I'll believe them. Apples to apples.
But yeah, either way, a couple second difference doesnt mean much to me either - so I agree with your sentiment, regardless of which eeks out that extra two seconds.
LoL! Well, IE is Spry Internet in a box. Just a much bigger box, with a lot of added crap stuck on it since MS bought/licensed (err... stole and fought court battles to get out of paying for) it.
Slashdot Mirror
ScrewMaster is correct - and of course, you are thus not.
Heck, MS often even has others fix or finish their various of their drivers for amazingly simple devices such as mice (IBM usually).
And my diesel can 'charge' in 1-2 minutes, even on the move, gets 600 miles to the tank, gets better MPG than a typical hybrid and hosts about 1/5th as much.
Electrical cars are a dead end. If you're calling 3 hours 'good' you're disconnected from reality.
The Model S (at 5+ legal highway speeds here in most of urban/suburban NY) would run for 5 hours (and require 45 minutes to charge).
So, what you are saying is that you drive for more than 5 hours a day - and thus electric cars (like the Model S) are a dead end?
Even if you drive more than 5 hours/300 miles a day, you are far from the norm. Even when I commuted from Long Island to White Plains, NY; I was only driving 130 miles a day. If I decided to go out with friends (yeah, I have a few, really) those nights, I'd still be under 200 miles in a day.
Except for the "we go on driving vacations every day" crowd, I see it unlikely that these constraints mean much to anyone else. Heck, even a worker who drove around for a living wouldnt (or would rarely) exceed 300 miles in a day - 8 hours, minus 1 hour lunch, minus let's say (15 minutes a stop x 10 stops) exceeds an 8 hour work day - and would mean 300 miles of total driving between stops.
Your example means nothing when discussed in terms of the reality of driving.
Now, factor in the fuel cost. The electric ends up being cheaper per mile than your 600 miles to the tank car.
Now factor in your "hosts (sic) about 1/5th as much" statement. So... your car cost $10K new? The Model S is supposed to cost $50K new.
Then factor in their BlueStar vehicle (next to be produced) which should cost in the $30K area.
Have you yet to see how little sense your post actually makes? On top of all that, the more models and cars Tesla produces, the cheaper they get. I'd say in a few years (or less with just a fraction of what the govt gave GM going to Tesla) that their electric line will have cars in the $20K-$25K range.
So, why is a 3 hour charge (or the 45 minute charge on the Model S) a problem? What is so difficult about plugging in your car at night and unplugging it in the morning?
So, who's disconnected from reality?
But Top Gear pointed out that once you deplete the battery, you have to charge it all night before you can use it again (I think the exact time was 14 hours).
Either you are misreading the TopGear review, or they are mis-citing the charge time.
The Roadster takes 4 hours to charge. Not bad at all unless you plan on driving more than 300 miles a day (tested range is showing about 290 miles per charge).
The Model S takes 45 minutes to charge - and it's planned range is 300 miles. So, if the Roadster's planned range is 240 and it gets closer to 300... and the Model S's planned range is 300...
Either way, at 300 miles a charge, 45 minutes - or even 4 hours, isnt much at all.
Of course, the thing you (mis?)remember reading may have been charge time when plugged into a standard 110V outlet (as opposed to being plugged into the "Home Charger" unit which charges a lot quicker).
I didnt realize that cell phones talked directly to each other... ;-)
But yes, I was talking fixed line phones - since the post I was responding to was - (and the general discussion was talking about VOIP calls - which are usually made from some sort of fixed line connection (Internet from someplace, going through a wire or cable)).
And here, there are a few mobile carriers - they each talk about the wonderful network they use - but yet again, many share the same one(s).
Regardless, they get routed from cell to tower to... ???... to cell/landline/VOIP phone.
In the US, I was not aware there were multiple phone companies. Wow, you learn something new every day. Last I heard, there was "The Bell Companies" (under a plethora of names - yet still really one massive interrelated entity).
ATT/Bell/Verizon
Then... there are a bunch of phone service resellers; who sell either access onto Bell's phone network (they dont own their own after all) via their POC routers, or Bell's; followed by VOIP providers who still largely have to have their calls transferred onto the Bell phone network for delivery to the non VOIP caller (ie: VOIP->landline call or landline->VOIP call).
And even long distance calls via a carrier that has their own lines, still gets transferred to the local lines, computers and telco switches for delivery to the home(s).
So, as far as I can see, it's VOIP->VOIP that's the only other option to not going through the one telco monopoly in this country.
The same thing happens in certain structure fires. When a room loses it's "airtight" nature, a fire will flare up or a room will explode. It's thus also part of the danger of opening doors in a structure that is on fire.
And nowadays with non-metal tanks, the chance of a larger breach forming (due to heat and/or flame) is larger - making explosion potential larger (ie: it becomes a "battle" to see if enough of the tank will melt to disperse the gasoline over a larger area before it explodes due to the inflow of air).
Either way, you have either a big, hot fire; or a nice explosion with a big hot fire. Thus, either way, it isnt a pretty scene.
Secondly - the difference between laptop li-ion batteries and a car gas tank is the tank has a very very tough metal wall separating the reactants (gasoline and air), while the laptop battery only has thin films.
Really? By "very very tough metal wall separating the reactants (gasoline and air)" you mean plastic or some similar non-metal gas tank used in various newer cars or in various aftermarket gas tank replacements, correct?
And, the metal ones used today are far from "very very tough" - I was just at a car accident two weeks ago where that "very very tough" metal gas tank was leaking all over the street from a relatively low speed impact.
Imagine twenty gallons of gasoline blowing up. Yikes!
There isn't enough oxygen in your gas tank to allow an explosion, batteries aren't as picky.
Well, if you have a 20 gallon tank, then maybe there isn't - initially. If you have let's say 10 gallons in a 20 gallon tank, there is plenty of oxygen in the tank (and who ever drives on a full tank all the time? If that were possible (a never emptying gas tank), we wouldn't need alternative power methods). And of course, if you have 20 gallons in a 20 gallon tank, once enough burns out through the rupture point, there's enough oxygen. Try it some time (go get a gas can, fill it, light it from the opening (the one you fill it through, or one you created) and see what happens --- note, this is not a good suggestion to follow unless you want to get hurt). It actually doesn't take that long for enough gas to burn out (and the emptied volume to be filled with enough air) for the tank to explode.
I see your point, but gasoline in a tank never blows up spontaneously. Li ion batteries are still a bit dicey, on occasion.
[humor]Guess you've never owned a Pinto.[/humor]
Seriously though, cheap, poorly produced batteries without the necessary safeguards spontaneously explode. Tesla seems to have opted for far better technology. Laptop batteries (the earlier example) rarely explode when you consider the sheer volume out there compared to the number of exploding batteries. If you remove the ones where the battery "manufacturers" decided to save a few bucks and go with a shoddy supplier, the number of exploding laptop or cell batteries is very very minimal - probably far less than the number of cars on the road that catch fire each year.
Because that is not very practical.
Here's why I think that. The majority of the cost of the Tesla cars (Roadster, Model S, etc) is the drivetrain and batteries - not the body. Thus Tesla is making the correct decision - making a car that appeals to a larger segment of the car buying market (The Model S and BlueStar), for a fraction more than a "Smart Car" version would be (which would be purchased by less people due to it's limited... well... everything (capacity, mileage, etc).
The Model S (I and think also the BlueStar), btw, will come in varying mileage ranges... standard battery config and extended battery config (the 300 mile range version). Regardless, they've already "re-innovated" their charging and/or battery setup as the Model S is supposed to charge in a fraction of the time that the Roadster does (and get better mileage).
So, instead you want them to make a Smart Car, with lower range (300km or 186miles)? Why not just buy a Smart Car instead of wanting them to get into a market that has a smaller segment of the population interested in it? Why in the world should they make another only semi-useful electric car when GM and gang are so good at that - when they can instead proceed in the direction they are going and make one far more useful? Where I live, millions of people commute to NYC every day for work - a Smart Car is barely - if - useful when a daily commute can be upwards of 120-150 miles.
But, who the hell wants a sedan/family car??
Ummm... more like a luxury sedan than a family car... and a damn gorgeous one at that.
Regardless, most cars I see on the road here in NY are sedans.
Then again...I've never owned a car with more than 2 seats...always had 2 seat sports cars. Ok, technically the 911 turbo had 4 seats (R.I.P. Katrina), but, those weren't functional enough to count.
If you think your choice of cars is the norm, then I guess you haven't really driven much/ever, have you? How many two seaters do you see out there? While you may have exclusively owned 2 seaters, most of the rest of the US driving population does not.
More importantly, how many 2 seaters out there are economical anyway? Your 911 Turbo? The Corvette? A Ferrari?
A car for "the masses" has rarely - if ever - been a 2 seater. You're comparing apples to tomato sauce - or your purchase example is simply irrelevant to this discussion (and thus baffles me as to why you brought it up since it is thus out of context and not applicable to this discussion).
I just can't picture 'lusting' after something that looks like another Camry...with the only difference being that it is electrically powered.
Hmmm... even if it looked like "another Camry" (which seem to sell pretty well), then why wouldnt people be "lusting" after it? Let's see why they would... cheaper per mile travel, more "creature comforts", carries more passengers, less and/or cheaper general maintenance... just to name a few reasons.
But that's assuming it looked like a Camry - which it doesnt. Looks more like a high class luxury sedan (BMW, Benz, etc) - for which it's price is in line with it's competition.
The answers to that are: (somewhat more affordable, and for it's looks and features a great price) The Model S, and (a lot more affordable - getting there in price) the "BlueStar" - the last two of those getting better mileage than the Roadster - and the Model S being able to carry 7 people.
Now, if the government decides to... oh, I dunno... send Tesla Motors some money to mass produce these things - instead of (NOT talking bailout money) sending GM and others a lot of money for their *FAKE* *BULLSHIT* green initiatives... well, then mass production and even lower prices will be on their way.
Why do I call GM and gang's initiatives fake and bullshit you ask? Here are just a few reasons.
Tesla could figure out how to get 300 miles on a charge - but GM still says it isnt possible and the battery and charging technology doesn't exist (even though they have taken a crapload of money from the govt - plus their own supposed expenditures, to come up with such technology). How can a startup manage to do this in less time, having spent a lot less money - but GM and gang cant figure it out - and with the proof on the road (Roadsters already built and delivered) still claim it isnt possible (and somehow be taken seriously)?
Tesla has figured out how to make a usable car (range, passenger capacity - Model S), while GM and gang are playing with things that have neither the range or seating capacity - again all because they claim the technology doesnt exist (even though, again, Tesla has proven them wrong and spent a lot less money to do so).
Tesla has figured out how to make an attractive car (cars actually - the Roadster and Model S). Because, yes folks, no matter how good a car it is, most people will not buy it if it is ugly - just the way humans are). Yet GM (who has released such beauties as the Corvette, Camaro and various others) is struggling to make a car that looks appealing. If they are that out of ideas, they can simply hire another design team - not like they havent spent enough money to have paid for that numerous times over already.
I could go on and on... but, suffice to say, the big key here is, Tesla is on their way to making more affordable electric cars; that are attractive, long range, carry a lot of passengers, come with all the creature comforts and so on. What that leaves is for enough people to realize this and call GM and the other Big 2's bluff and pester the government to push those green car subsidies to Tesla instead with an agreement to truly mass produce their cheaper lines.
Of course, that wont happen - lots of lost tax revenues in gas/diesel sales if those things take off. At least until the government figures out how to tax drivers by the mile or by how much electricity they use to recharge their electric cars.
LoL... we're saying the same thing. And yeah, I found the whole BSA thing quite amusing since we were running virtually exclusively OS/2, 3 Macs, and a single Win2K machine (and owned 22 licenses).
I had a fun time of it.
Have you ever read some of the extortion letters they send? I got a series from Microsoft and the BSA once. Talking to a lawyer, they implied, was grounds for them rescinding their "generous offer" and taking legal action.
There was a list of other things that would cause them to do that as well... not sending them the detailed information they wanted, and so on. They also demanded entry into my premises to confirm such. No nothing indicating they had no legal right to enter my premises at will. No nothing indicating they had no case. I sent them back a letter telling them they were forbidden to ever step foot on my property - and if they did, I would have any representative of their arrested for criminal trespass. Then I sent them a list of all of the OS/2 installations I had - no Windows ones, and images of all the authentic, unused Windows licenses that we had - and advised them continued harrassment would be grounds for me initiating legal action against them.
Funny thing is, they knew we were running OS/2, and most have "assumed" (or been given wrong information by an "informant") that we had lotsa Windows machines. I know they knew that, because added to my arsenal against them, were logs from all of the machines showing probes coming from Microsoft.
Anyway, the point is, most people dont know what they can or cannot; should or should not; do in cases like this... and the extortion letters directly imply many things that you should not do if you want to make your situation worse (with plenty of legal speak to cover their asses telling you the exact opposite where required by law). So, many uniformed people get scared by the settlement letters and follow through as the RIAA wants.
And may soon here. There's currently a line that's getting blurrier every day as to what constitutes civil and criminal copyright infringement - and the RIAA (and MPAA) are actively trying to remove that line.
The other factor is, the "Big 4" gang that comprises the RIAA have similar entities in other countries that can continue their nonsense against the alleged infringers if they were to move to other countries. And being multi-national companies, they can file suit there as well. Of course a lot of that is dependent on what the copyright laws are in those countries - but as pointed out, some are as bad or worse than ours.
Here's the catch. Ever try to finish college with a judgement over your head? Ever try to keep your student loans for your last 2 or 3 years of college after that judgement has been filed (or worse, you've declared bankruptcy)? Or hope that the destruction of your credit (via the judgement or bankruptcy) wont prevent you from getting the job you want (many big employers now do credit checks)?
Or does mom and dad have to bail you out (pay the extortion fees to the RIAA) to ensure that you can continue to go to school and continue to get loans to pay your remaining years?
I dont think it's too much of a gamble on the part of the RIAA... and it is definitely a planned one.
Or in many cases, drag it out hoping their opponent, regardless of being "in the right" can no longer afford to proceed - thus winning anyway.
Sadly, other than a reform of the DMCA, the only way I see such abuses stopping is for someone like Google to file a countersuit against the filers for filing frivolous claims. Enough of those go through, and I betcha that frivolous claims (at least against places like Google and Wikipedia) will drop off - and those considering making such frivolous claims against smaller entities will at least think twice.
You're forgetting that Win95 was installed via floppy.
Thus, doing the autodetection configuration during the installation should have been an easy thing. The installer is already accessing the floppy, it could write the config information to disk (or save it in memory) and then configure the autodetect routine accordingly. No user intervention required, and totally transparent.
Since it is such a simple solution to do this, I'm assuming that the code never worked to begin with, or MS just figured out how to do it.
If it took me (and how many others here on /.) only a few seconds to figure out how to do this transparently - and simpler/easier than by using a user prompt to "train" it, I cant believe MS couldnt think of it. I thus believe there were either (a) other problems that prevented the code from being usable and/or (b) they actually didnt have this figured out pre-Win95 release.
...because the only other scenario would be that the Win95 Dev Team is truly clueless - after all, with the stack of floppies required to install Win95, there are plenty of auto-config times available where no user intervention or prompts would be required to figure out which method worked with the floppy drive. (and no, I am not saying they are that clueless - I'm saying that assuming they aren't, my previous explanations are the only ones that make sense to me as to why they did not incorporate such functionality).
Another thing rarely mentioned, is that as these ice sheets and bergs break away and melt, it causes other climate changes. In very non-technical terms, water evaporation from ice is more difficult than water evaporation from a non-frozen state. The volume of unfrozen water is increasing.
Oh, and the various governments and organizations who monitor such have also noted a growing decrease in the ice sheets in and around the Arctic Circle/Canada.
Doesnt matter to me either way... I love swimming. (yes, that's humor - if only a poor attempt at it)
Yeah, when and where it becomes or is legal. It just (a few months ago) finally became legal in Islip, NY (up to 50ft turbine on residential properties, up to 75ft on commercial properties).
But that doesnt take into account that turbines (in the US) are still far more expensive than they need to be (compare overseas prices for either the same turbines, or similar rated/quality ones).
"The biggest wind potential lies off the nation's Atlantic coast, which the Interior report estimates could produce 1,000 gigawatts of electricity ..." ...when the wind's blowing.
Which, off the east coast, is virtually all the time. Today's wind turbines start at 7-9mph, and start generating at 9-12mph.
Unfortunately being somewhat fickle it doesn't always do that and when it doesn't you need backup generators. In fact you'd need to backup ALL the wind power generators with equal rating backup systems and since these would probably coal and/or nuclear which can't be started up and shut down on a whim and so need to run 24/7 anyway it makes a mockery of the whole enviromental argument for wind.
Or other storage techniques could be used - much akin to methods used currently with solar.
Not to mention the fact that we are getting closer and closer to using supercapacitors as batteries.
And thats before you get into power transmission issues - windy sites generally arn't near big cities.
While true, neither is Niagra Falls near where I live on Long Island - though some of our power is delivered from there. I think an off-shore wind turbine would be far closer to the shore than Niagra Falls is to me. Yes, there are other challenges when it comes to an ocean bed cable and such - but we've made some decent advances in that as well. With the right cables (utilizing newer techniques and technologies), and redundancy; this should be a minimal problem.
As a car driver, you could always do what near every other car driver does - put the car in park. One simple button press (look at the center console pictures).
As it is an electric car, there is no engine start time or hassle of fumbling for a key. To put the car in drive, no digging for the key - just hit the "D" button and you are in drive mode.
As a first responder, chances are you already have RFID tags to enter and exit your building and are more then competent at using them - except this one is easier - it never needs to leave your pocket.
And, as a first responder (amazed you admitted to such behavior on a public forum), you should know that maintaining safety on any accident scene is part of your responsibility - leaving any car in gear while off is a dangerous thing, as the car can roll. This should NEVER be an option for you. Every state I have dealt with has certain laws and guidelines that first responders must adhere to - you are clearly violating them in doing something so dangerous.
And finally, as a first responder, I would figure this would be a quicker, easier, method of speeding up your action times. In your unsafe scenario, you would have to put the car in park (shift a lever), reach for the key, start the car, put the car back in drive - all to simply be able to move the car to proceed to either another call or to the hospital or wherever. In this scenario, all you need to do is hit the "D" button. No reaching for a key, turning it, and then changing gears to drive.
Your unsafe, and possibly illegal (or at the least, against the requirements and guidelines for first repsonders) is actually slower than what this car would allow.
I know in this state, first responders who endanger the safety at a scene can be reprimanded, suspended, fined or "fired" or in the case of worse (such as a secondary accident based on them making the scene even more unsafe) can face far worse.
Add-ins are the "killer app" of the browser for me.
Then you should LOVE IE... with IE, add-ons are the "killer app" for the Operating System
;-)
I don't think I'll ever switch from Firefox if competing browsers don't have this feature built into it. I just couldn't live without stuff like foxmarks, flagfox, customisegoogle, etc..
Nor will I.
Yeah, IE8 can render pages faster but who really cares when pages render in a matter of seconds in any of the browsers on the market. 1 or 2 second difference means nothing to me. Add-ins mean alot to me and are the defining feature and without them it makes IE an inferior browser to Firefox.
Well, when I see more unbiased comparisons (not MS sponsored ones), and when I see it compared to the latest (and faster) betas of FF and Chrome and Safari, then I'll believe them. Apples to apples.
But yeah, either way, a couple second difference doesnt mean much to me either - so I agree with your sentiment, regardless of which eeks out that extra two seconds.
LoL! Well, IE is Spry Internet in a box. Just a much bigger box, with a lot of added crap stuck on it since MS bought/licensed (err... stole and fought court battles to get out of paying for) it.