Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re: Easy solution (Score 1) 437

Eventually, those bearings fail, and you have to replace the motor, but not for a very long time.

I certainly hope not. You can typically press new bearings in for just about all other motors, after all.

You can put new bands in a transmission, too. Still, probably 99% of the time, you get a rebuilt transmission installed, and the installer ships back the old part to be remanufactured. I would expect that to be true for electric motor repairs as well.

You missed suspension, steering, body work/subframe rot, electical issues, HVAC issues, LED lights (yeah, they do go bad, apparently rather often from what I've seen on the road), tires, snow tires and wheels, parking brake adjustment, brake fluid, bearing replacement, differential work (though that could be eliminated), axle issues, interior problems (broken seats, for example), interior lights, batteries, and probably other stuff I've forgotten.

Brakes and steering on most electric vehicles are electrical, not hydraulic, which should result in very low maintenance, at least within the currently typical lifespan of a car.

Besides, most of the things on that list are repairs (after failures), not routine maintenance (to prevent future failures). There's nothing you can do maintenance-wise to prevent a blown interior bulb or a broken seat (except perhaps losing weight if you're on the heavy side).

The only thing on your list that I would consider true maintenance is tires, which was one of the things I mentioned.

Comment Re: Easy solution (Score 4, Informative) 437

And yes owners, there is oil needed for your volt.

Um, no. Electric cars use permanently lubricated bearings. There's no mechanism by which the dealer can add oil to anything. Eventually, those bearings fail, and you have to replace the motor, but not for a very long time.

Electric cars do need tire rotation, brake pad replacement, and replacement of brake lights and other exterior lights (if they aren't LEDs). Beyond that, they should be largely maintenance-free.

Comment Re:Let them lease, but not screw with sales (Score 1) 231

The PC is a modular product made to be upgraded. If they don't want you tampering with stuff inside of it, they need to put a tamper seal on each thing they don't want you touching.

Well, they certainly can do so, but AFAIK, there's no legal reason they have to do so. However, if they deny the warranty, the burden of proof is on them to show that the changes you made caused the failure, at least in theory. In practice, if you aren't willing to sue them, they can deny the warranty all they want to, and they probably won't ever get in trouble for it.

Comment Re:Questions... (Score 1) 135

It's not greed, just survival. For some unknown reason antibiotics have a synergistic growth effect on animals that are not sick so antibiotics are feed to healthy animals. In the real world most businesses are barely profitable so any action that can increase profits is used to avoid bankruptcy.

Horses**t. The first farmers who did this did it because of greed, trying to make a bigger profit. Later farmers might have felt that it was the only way to survive, but only because the first farmers did what they did.

If your business isn't making a profit, you raise prices until it does. If you can't do that, it means either that you're doing something inefficiently or that somebody else is cutting corners. If it is the former, you need to fix the inefficiency. If it is the latter, you need to clearly differentiate your products from those others in the marketplace so that your customers know why your products cost more. Either way, cutting the same corners that everybody else does invariably results in a race to the bottom, not just in terms of cost, but also in terms of profit margins and quality. Once your business goes down that path, you might as well close the business and give the money back to the shareholders, because it is a hopeless cause, and your business is no longer contributing anything of value to the world as a whole that could not be contributed just as easily (and more efficiently) by your competitors in your absence.

Comment Re:Small print (Score 1) 33

Yes, this isn't all that unusual at all. It's pretty consistent with the unsolicited ideas submission policies of most major companies.

With that said, if these terms scare you, and if you don't care about submitting to Amazon, but just want a web-based script writing platform, check out WebScripted TV. It's kind of preliminary (translation: I'm the only developer, only user, and only tester), and I had to work around dozens of really bad bugs and misbehavior in various browsers' HTML editing functionality (to such an extent that MSIE isn't even supported, because it was just too broken to be even halfway functional last time I tried), so don't expect God's greatest gift to his people, but it is free to use, and lets you save copies of your content locally for backup purposes (or at least I think I enabled that feature).

And if you're an aspiring director, camera operator, etc., it offers the potential for creating groups of reviewers who can accept submissions from outside writers, collaboration on an online forum, peer editing, etc. Of course, I don't have the connections needed to actually get folks to start using it, but the potential is there.

Comment Re:Don't install Comcast equipment... (Score 1) 47

I've never seen any /29 blocks for sale, and even if you could, you'd still have to get the ISP to route it, which they won't do, because they aren't willing to set up static routes, which is why they demand that you use their equipment so that they can use authenticated RIP without giving you the credentials.

Comment Re:Apple Music (Score 1) 460

t throws away all the timing information, so "c"onsonants aren't, and the difference between "p", "b" and "v" are completely lost, even though they're acoustically quite distinct.

That sounds like every cell phone call I ever heard. If you ever want to drive yourself to commit homicide on a bunch of audio codec engineers, try driving a car down the freeway and having someone on the other end of the line feed you crossword puzzle questions. They'll be saying "d as in dog", and half the time you'll still hear "p as in paul".

This makes me wonder how much of it is the software, and how much of it is the horrific microphone hidden behind a single tiny hole that is anything but acoustically transparent....

Comment Re:Don't install Comcast equipment... (Score 1) 47

Exactly this - what's to stop your own equipment from being the static IP?

I think you both misread what I said.

Comcast requires their business-class DSL customers with more than one static IP to use rented equipment.

They'll let you have a single static IP with your own CPE. They might even allow you two (not certain). They won't let you have a block of eight IPs, which is what I currently have from Covad or Megapath or whatever their name is this week (Global something-or-other).

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 514

This genetic modification involves adding genes that produce additional fish growth hormones. If they added growth hormones to the meat after they killed the fish, that would be an additive. How is modifying the organism to produce that same chemical somehow magically different?

More to the point, how certain are we that fish growth hormones have no effect on human biology? Twenty years ago, nobody would have thought twice about plant estrogen, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics in meat, etc. What will we know twenty years from now that we don't know today, and how certain are we that none of those genetic changes will turn out to be a mistake?

The whole point of requiring labeling for genetically modified foods is to ensure that if someone buys atlantic salmon, he or she gets atlantic salmon, not chinook salmon. Whether it matters in this particular case—whether there's a noticeable difference between the health benefits of chinook salmon and atlantic salmon—is largely immaterial. As soon as you allow genetically modified organisms to be sold without labeling, you can't put that genie back in the bottle, and other companies are going to expect similar treatment. Sooner or later, one of those changes is going to make a material difference in terms of how healthy the food is, and nobody will have any way to know that they're not really getting what they paid for.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 514

Five years of study and testing.

Mostly done by the industry and by an agency that has repeatedly failed to regulate that industry. The very same organization that is saying that these foods are safe also approved all those fun food additives that are believed to cause cancer and other issues. They're the same folks who were talking about allowing a rebranding of high fructose corn syrup as something else (I forget what, maybe corn sugar) to let the industry hide from consumer backlash over excessive fructose consumption that has been linked to diabetes and heart disease. And the list goes on and on. If we can't trust the FDA—and I maintain that we cannot—then we also can't trust its testing.

And even if we can trust its testing, the harsh reality is that although we know roughly what spliced genes will do in the first generation, under typical circumstances, we can't be certain how these changes could affect naturally suppressed genes over the course of hundreds of generations of breeding, variable environmental conditions, etc. Given enough unrestricted genetic modification, there's a nonzero chance that a previously safe plant or animal could spontaneously stop being so, without warning. Now to be fair, there's a nonzero chance of that happening without genetic modification, but my gut says that the chance is greater in a newly created genetic hybrid than in an organism that evolved over millions of years to be suited to its environment without any of those latent genes getting turned on throughout all of known history.

For those reasons, I feel that people who wish to minimize their exposure to genetically modified foods should have a legal right to know whether a given food product is likely to contain genetically modified foods, even if the additional risk posed by those foods is extremely low, in much the same way that they have the right to know whether pesticide was used, whether the milk was pasteurized, etc. The fact that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that foods don't contain any genetically modified organisms is mostly irrelevant, because the risk of GMO foods is likely to be extremely small to begin with, so I think the FDA is being disingenuous when they use that excuse to block product labeling. Besides, there's a tiny possibility of pesticide blowing in from the next field and contaminating an organic crop, but the FDA doesn't ban farmers from calling their crops organic. So the FDA is treating this subject differently from other similar issues. That alone is reason to doubt whether they are truly functioning as an independent organization in this regard, or merely bowing to political pressure from big agribusiness.

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux