Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Cherthoff is a goddamned criminal. (Score 1) 28 28

Besides perjuring himself in testimony to the congress, he's responsible for billions of counts of felony wiretaps against innocent people. That motherfucker belongs behind bars, not shooting his mouth off about how we should all make it easier for fascist scumbags to wipe their asses with the constitution.

-jcr

Comment Re:Balancing Act (Score 1) 161 161

There are other issues that you are insured for as well. Such as Window damage, chances are they can cover flat tires, and issues that may occur due to less then stellar maintenance. As less people will be directly driving the cars, they may not notice issues in performance as well.

Comment Re: Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 858 858

I called you daft for not understanding the concept that someone who runs a swapping service station covers all costs related to their business activities and rolls them into what they charge for service, just like every other business does. I fail to see what is hard about this for you to understand. The answer to "who pays for X cost" is *always* "the service provider, with the costs indirectly passed on to their customers via the rate charged".

Really, you think that bad fuel can't damage an engine? It can and does. And it's the supplier who ultimately bears the cost. No, "bad electricity" is not a proper analogy (although your sarcasm in this regard is funny given how many devices are damaged by surges every year); a gas station fuels vehicles by insertung fuel into them, while a swapping station fuels vehicles by inserting pre-charged batteries into them. Batteries correspond to fuel in this context.

In what world do you live where car parts are regularly inspected by the manufacturer after being installed into the vehicle? Cars have hundreds if not thousands of parts more safety critical than a battery pack, and yes, manufacturers *are* liable if their failure modes due to damage pose an unreasonable risk of injury. Think of a famous failure case - say, for example, the Ford Pinto fires. Were the gas tanks defective? Nope. But the cars had an unacceptably bad failure mode in certain types of crashes, and it fell on the manufacturer to fix it - as it always does. A part must meet its use case, and if its use case is "deliver electricity from a swappable system and not burn the vehicle down if damaged", it has to contain the necessary safety systems to do that.

Lastly, you're still stuck in bizarro world where ICE vehicles full of combustible fuel are incombustible, whereas EVs with no combustable fuel and more often than not with batteries less flammable than a block of cheese (once again: *not all li-ions are the same*!) burst into flames left and right. Meanwhile, in the reality that the rest of us live in, the opposite is true. Heck, last summer I saw a flaming hulk of a passenger car with fire crews trying to put it out to extract the burned bodies of the two tourists who had been driving it. Meanwhile, Teslas and Leafs have been in many wrecks - go to Google Images and search for "crash tesla" or "crash leaf". Where are the fires from these oh-so-flammable vehicles? Yes, they have happened, but at a much lower per-vehicle rate than gasoline cars according to NTSB stats. Sorry, but your fire conceptions are just not based in reality.

Comment Re:It's coming. Watch for it.. (Score 3, Insightful) 90 90

A huge percentage are frickin' snowflakes demand to be given the same rights and berth as automobiles

Can you imagine someone demanding the same rights as an automobile?

Everyone knows automobiles were endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights to have everyone get out of the fucking way.

Comment PRESS RELEASE ALERT! (Score 1) 161 161

Most of us are looking forward to the advent of autonomous vehicles.

Are you shitting me? Most of us were looking forward to the advent of flying cars, too.

Earlier this week...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

And who do they think is going to be purchasing all these "autonomous vehicles" and with all the twenty-somethings and millennials moving back home with their parents, how do they think they're going to afford them?

Look, I don't mind advertisements on Slashdot, but goddamn, please stop with the press releases from "anonymous" parties.

Comment Re:Why go without GPS? (Score 2) 29 29

On the Moon or Mars they wouldn't reach very far. But a RTG-powered version on Titan would have unlimited range (although may need to land periodically to recharge its flight batteries). And even a rocket or gas jet version would have quite significant range on an asteroid.

Such a design is obviously going to be very mission sensitive, hence the need for different propulsion systems. Some missions would benefit significantly as well from wings to allow for long distance flight on bodies with atmospheres (Venus, Titan, maybe Mars, etc). A couple worlds, such as Titan, might benefit from landing floats. And so forth. But that's where rapid prototyping tech (such as 3d printing) becomes useful - they engineer the base model and then can play around with variants with ease. Hopefully in the end they'll have a sample collector module with a workable version for almost any body in the solar system. And for the interests of science, we really need something like that, a universal adaptable drone module - to be paired with a universal adaptable ion tug module, one of a couple variants of a universal adaptable reentry / landing modules, and the same for adaptable ascent modules.

It's impressive what science can be pulled off on the surface of another world. But it's nothing compared to what we can do here on Earth with a sample return.

The longer the title, the less important the job.

Working...