Time to wake up and smell the coffee
Is this actually news to anyone? If so you must live under a rock.
177 posts • joined 13 Apr 2013
Google for one has reported eleven accidents so far and several of the accidents were from the vehicles driven in full autonomous mode. This is just the beginning. There are major obstacles to overcome before any AV is remotely viable for street use. What many people don't understand is that a fully autonomous has to have 100% reliability of all systems all of the time in addition to being able to make the right decisions when some electronics fails or there is an accident directly in front of them or an emergency vehicle is approaching or when someone is going to crash into the AV. There will be cases where the AV must decide who dies in an unavoidable accident. This is some pretty serious stuff to resolve.
BTW there is a big difference between a car running down the road with a driver sitting at the wheel just enjoying the ride and a vehicle that has no steering wheel, brakes, etc. and no means for a passenger to take control of the vehicle in an emergency. The later presents a lot more challenges than a "cruise control" style AV with manual override by a driver.
Chambers should spend more time hiring competent programmers for their worthless ASDM software than campaigning for immigrant labor. There is no shortage of competent programmers yet Cisco has been unable in the past 15 years to provide a competent graphical interface to manage their hardware products. It's as if they haven't heard of Windows or smart phones. Being forced to use stone age CLI is absurd in this day and age. Chambers needs to get a grip on reality.
This story implies that the legislation is gay hate but I'm not so sure that is the case. It was intended to protect religious beliefs but IMO that is secondary to the publics interest. Thus if you chose to own a business or work in one and you have a religious issue with something associated with serving the public, you should seek employment elsewhere.
A typical server might have a operating TDP of a few hundred watts. Try heating your room/house with only a few hundred watts of electricity and see what happens. In warm weather you'd be lucky to raise the room temp a degree or two. In cold weather the heat loss rate would far exceed the TDP from the server. Even as a supplemental heat source this idea fails.
You'd need a huge server TDP just to add some heat to a room/house. To use it as a primary heat source isn't even an option. Then you have all the other issues with water based cooling maintenance, logistics, etc. and for what? How could you ever obtain enough heat from the server to be practical? The Biz model fails on so many aspects as to be silly.
How is it that when provided with irrefutable evidence of massive violation of law by say Comcast or other cable/telcos, the FTC has done absolutely NOTHING to force Comcast to cease and desist their illegal behavior? What exactly does the FTC view as it's sworn obligation to U.S. consumers as far as protection from illegal business practices by companies like Comcast who illegally block international e-mail sent to U.S. subscribers, install unsecured hotspots in people's homes without notice that they are unsecured, illegal credit checks after customers pay a $50. fee to prevent unnecessary and illegal credit checks that hurt consumer credit ratings and other crimes? How is it possible that the FTC can be well aware of these and other illegal Biz practices of Comcast and other companies yet the FTC does absolutely nothing other than send customer complaints to the unscrupulous business entities and then routinely accept a response letter that ignores the illegal practices and makes false statements regarding the incidents.
U.S. consumers should be contacting their elected reps in DC and asking them the above questions because when the FTC is asked these questions, they ignore the questions just as the criminal corporations ignore the questions. It's as if the FTC works for the criminal corporations and not for the citizens of the U.S. who pay the salaries and benefits of those employed at the FTC who chose to abdicate their sworn responsibilities to protect consumers from corporate fraud.
This new consumer protection group is likely to be smoke and mirrors if they fail to perform as the current FTC consumer protection group does.
I see someone gave a thumbs down to the reality that the FTC and FCC have abdicated their responsibilities and allowed big business to exploit consumers. Anyone who does not believe this reality is in deep, deep denial so they are either clueless or part of the problem, perhaps both.
IMO, every single cable or phone user in the U.S. should be contacting their elected reps in Congress demanding that the FTC and FCC actual perform their duties to protect consumers from the illegal and unethical business practices that Comcast and other companies employ. Failing to demand accountability from the FCC and FTC is going to cost U.S. consumers dearly. NOW is the time to speak up because it's only going to get worse if you don't.
The reason why batteries are not used for many applications is because the energy available is impractical for the cost of the system and maintenance. Stealing money for so called renewable energy is a farce and con game that many profit from including Elon Musk. You're paying for his follies.
This has already been tried and failed because these cars are not designed for rapid battery changes amongst other things in addition to no standard battery profiles per se for different vehicle brands/models, which can also compromise the vehicle design if they need to use a standardized battery shape, size, output, etc.
You don't seem to understand the point was about the car's function, not cost. He didn't say anything about not being able to afford one and it doesn't matter if he can or can't afford one. The point is that if the Tesla S or any EV for that matter is only practical for city driving then it doesn't meet the needs of most people in society. With no realistic supporting infrastructure the car's recharging needs dictate the owner instead of the owner being able to freely travel where ever and when ever they choose as they can with a petrol vehicle.
Until someone invents a battery that weighs 5 kilos, cost ten Euro, delivers 200 kWh and lasts ten years with 80% DOD, it's all just wishful thinking. We don't even need to get into the cost to recharge, the cost for a special home charging system, the cost of electricity, the cost of replacement batteries and the typical lifespan of the batteries, etc. Those are just "piling on" a frivolous endeavor to deceive the naïve with EVs.
What part of "NO" don't you understand? He explained that there was nothing about the Tesla vehicle that changed his mind about the limited use of these cars. It doesn't matter if he can afford one or not, what matters is if people who drive petrol powered vehicles feel a need to own one of these vehicles which has a limited range that is unacceptable to most consumers. If there is no compelling reason to own an EV then most people aren't willing to subject themselves to the many issues associated with them. That's precisely why they have never been commercially viable.
I don't see the majority of people giving up driving for an autonomous car. It certainly would offer a lot of benefits to many people however and improve safety in some instances. Aside from the technical challenges there are ethical issues to deal with.
As an example when there is going to be an accident no matter what the autonomous vehicle does, what should it do? Should it try to avoid the accident and just stop dead in the road, perhaps causing the vehicle to be hit both front and rear? If it should try to avoid an accident that it won't actually be able to avoid should it move in a direction that could endanger other people be they other commuters or pedestrians? If the autonomous car is in the middle lane with vehicles on both sides traveling along a motorway and the unavoidable accident scenario develops which car / lane would the autonomous vehicle crash into to try to avoid a head on collision? There are many, many ethical issues to be addressed before autonomous vehicles should be allowed on the roadways.
If battery swapping isn't something the average non-technical person can do easily and safely, then it won't be viable. Even the technically challenged can place a petrol nozzle in the fuel tank but I can imagine the nightmares trying to change batteries weighing hundreds of pounds or more. Charging to swap batteries just like quick charging is viable if EV owners are willing to pay for this. Then the issue is where are these stations located and are they on a route near where you desire to travel. If not then it's not practical to drive your EV on that destination. It's worth noting that the populace should not be paying for these infrastructures or services any more than we should pay for petrol stations.
To further your point about warming the battery, depending on the battery design operating the vehicle with the battery temp at ~27C vs. 20C nets ~10% more power from a typical battery. When temps get down near the 10C range battery output drops as much as 25% compared to 20C. So operating in warm temps vs. cool or cold temps, can yield a dramatic difference in battery performance alone. If the vehicle is operated any place other than on flat, smooth roadways, power consumption increases and range decreases.
For the clueless... An EV doesn't need sunshine, it needs warm weather to cut parasitic losses, to eliminate the use of an electric powered cabin heater, to eliminate the use of electric windshield wipers, etc. Flat roads in warm Southern California reduce power usage vs. Northern California or any hilly country. Operating these EVs in any environment other than an ideal flat, warm, dry environment lowers range dramatically. Thus it's laughable to claim 400 mile range when you're likely to get half of that in most less than ideal operating environments, especially cold, snowy areas.
Of course if you had a CLUE you'd already understand this.
Manning and his lawyer haven't got a snowball chance in Hell of a presidential pardon. There is probably less than 1% of people in the U.S. that think what Manning did was right. That leaves roughly 90% who think Manning is guilty of treason. The judicial system is in place to protect society from predators like Manning. There isn't any chance of a presidential pardon for him.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019