Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Not really an issue of IP (Score 1) 145

Unless there is a component part that is (1) essential to a patented product or method, (2) must be exclusively manufactured in the places where it is patented, and (3) has no non-infringing uses, then this theoretical IP won't stop the technology from being built and developed in the third world.

High efficiency solar panels (>40%) suffer from all three of those issues. They are made of high efficiency solar cells, which are patented. The panel can not exist without the cell. The cells are exclusively manufactured in places where it is patented (so far), and the cells have no non-infringing uses. They can be used to convert light to electricity, and aren't good for much of anything else.

That's the sole example of any significance—nobody gives a shit about the patented super-water-efficient toilet (literally). But that example is a problem even in the developed world. The cheap panels being imported from China are cheap because they contain no patented technology and are therefore legal to import without a license. They're also miserably inefficient compared to the (patented) state of the art. The owner of the world record (patent) holder boasts that there are 80 MWp installed worldwide. Judging by the fact that there are zero consumer products available, a license to make them can not be had at any price, let alone a reasonable price. The manufacturing contributes little to the price. It's still made of semiconductors, and if there is one thing southeast Asia knows how to produce in spectacular quantities for dirt cheap, it's semiconductors.

Comment: Re:Coal power cars make little sense (Score 2) 257

by Areyoukiddingme (#49064931) Attached to: Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models

Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.

What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.

All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...

Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s
Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s
Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.

Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.

Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.

2012 Coal 33.8%
2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%

Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.

Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.

Really? I guess you haven't made it to high school yet. I'll just describe the graph for those who won't follow the link. At 10% load the tested 25 horse power premium efficiency motor hits 80% efficiency. At 40% load, it hits 97% efficiency and it never drops below that, all the way out to 160% of its rated load.

and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution.

My infernal combustion car is 14 years old, thanks. Right now, if you care about pollution, and can afford the gasoline-competitive electric cars (either of them), you can also afford to cover your roof in solar panels from one end to the other. I can't, just yet, but someday I will. At which point I won't care what "industrial power production" is doing.

Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.

I replied with links. With numbers. You didn't. You should stop typing now.

Comment: Re:For the love of cock!! (Score 1) 257

by Areyoukiddingme (#49061579) Attached to: Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models

Just wait for the Apple electrical car!

That's what Steve Jobs would have wanted.

And watch how the posting counts on Slashdot stories are triple that of Tesla stories, with the most vicious pro-electric commenting and moderation you've ever seen. It'll make Tesla supporters look like lazy, staid, boring old people. You hear me? OLD PEOPLE!

Everybody will HAVE to have the new hotness. If they don't, they'll just DIE.

Comment: Re:Coal power cars make little sense (Score 4, Insightful) 257

by Areyoukiddingme (#49061533) Attached to: Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models

You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.

Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.

And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.

Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.

You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.

Comment: Re:Here go the MBA's (Score 2) 54

by Areyoukiddingme (#49036145) Attached to: Layoffs Begin At Daybreak Games

like, why the fuck bother with the takeover in the first place?

In the case of the ongoing collapse formerly known as SOE, they buy it for the trademarks and copyrights. Watch for bastardized bundles of patheticness bearing the EverQuest name showing up on mobile phones by this time next year.

In the case of Nokia, that was done for the purpose of utterly eliminating and destroying a Windows Phone competitor, in the certain knowledge that Windows can and does "succeed" when it has no surviving rivals. Because they've done it before.

It was Ballmer being Ballmer, doing the only thing he knows how to do. He is, was, and ever shall be a monopolist, and he only knows the plays of a monopolist. The fact that he can not treat Samsung and Apple the same way no doubt wrankled in his sodden breast, but he took some solace in extorting patent royalties for every Android-equipped device.

It's inexplicable to anyone as innocent as yourself, who thinks all that guff he was fed in school about playing fair, and level playing fields, and value for money, and benefiting the customer is actually real. It isn't. None of it is, as exhibited by the behavior of every large multinational corporation, which are universally dominated by sociopaths. Those phrases are for other people, to such minds.

It's easy to understand, as long as you can understand a certain special kind of insanity.

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 1) 825

We're $18Trillion in debt. We have roughly 1/2 a trillion in deficit per year. This President (and the one before him, easily as culpable)...

And the one before him and the one before him, right back to.... Reagan! Mr. Deficit Spender himself. Practically invented it in the modern era.

So, yeah. Really? Reaganomics? Why is the trickle on my head yellow?

Comment: Re:Didn't see that coming, la la la (Score 2) 69

by Areyoukiddingme (#49035557) Attached to: SpaceX Falcon 9 Launches, Rocket Recovery Attempt Scrapped

Waves in the ocean. That sure came out of left field. How could we have predicted that? We have the best experts money can buy making our plans, but how can we succeed when all this weird unpredictable stuff happens to us? /sarc

When the Air Force says, "You can land anywhere you want, except you can't land here, and you can't land here until you land somewhere else," you build a barge and take your chances with the waves.

Comment: Re:Here go the MBA's (Score 3, Insightful) 54

by Areyoukiddingme (#49035537) Attached to: Layoffs Begin At Daybreak Games

Current employees will want to update their CVs, but this may well keep this company in business long enough to employ more in the long-run.

Unlikely. MBAs persist in the foolish belief that programmers are fungible, short term. The former SOE has 100% software products. The MBA is going to lay off everybody who knows anything about those products, hire a bunch of Chinese engineers, and wonder why the next 4 projects fail.

Or possibly they've just decided that EverQuest should be a trading card game. Fronted by a cartoon.

Comment: Re:And now Elon's thinking... (Score 1) 48

by Areyoukiddingme (#49014775) Attached to: Tracking System Bug Delays SpaceX's DSCOVR Launch

At the Texas launch site, will SpaceX be providing launch radar or will the Air Force?

SpaceX may build a local radar site for the launch site itself, but you can bet the Air Force will still be involved, since the launch trajectory for equatorial orbits crosses Florida. It's unlikely that purely FAA-run radars will be considered acceptable for covering rocket launches any time soon, if they ever are. Their mode of operation is such that they don't provide updates quickly enough to be useful during an orbital launch, and it doesn't seem likely that the FAA will want to change that.

Nobody has yet been mad enough to suggest that a private company should have sole responsibility for tracking their own ICBM-ish vehicles.

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson