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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wow.. imagine if your gasoline car did this. (Score 1) 97

by Maxo-Texas (#48678159) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

If you live in a hydro state, electricity is even cheaper (I think 6 or 7 cpkwh).

With shopping and 6 month contracts (instead of 3 year), you can get 8.3 cpkwh right now.

Short contracts are cheap,
1-2 year are more expensive.
And 3 year are less expensive but more expensive than short term contracts.

To be honest, going to LED's is a much better payoff than solar power cells right now and will probably be for several more years. They all pay for themselves within 6 months. But you have to stick with the 3100k bulbs otherwise you get wierd shades of pink and orange or intense blue white (which will keep you up at night).

Comment: Re:Wow.. imagine if your gasoline car did this. (Score 3, Informative) 97

by Maxo-Texas (#48678145) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

Because the price is set by the last 1%.

If we can get 99% of our oil out of the ground for $40 per barrel and 1% of our oil out of the ground for $100 per barrel- then every barrel sells is if it cost $100 per barrel to get out of the ground.

And that's just in the united states. Europe also has a similar size fleet of electric vehicles.

And in Europe, for instance, while total petroleum consumption averaged over 15.3 million barrels per day in 2009, it was under 14.3 million in 2013, and has dropped further since.

We get 19 gallons of gasoline per barrel so that's so 465,000 fewer gallons of oil here (and another 465,000 fewer gallons of oil in europe) translates to 48,000 barrels a day of oil that used to be needed that isn't needed any more.

Comment: Re:Wow.. imagine if your gasoline car did this. (Score 1) 97

by Maxo-Texas (#48678115) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

Totally- not at all. But part of the reason for lower demand? Sure.

I'm sure there are many components to the lower demand and the higher supply.

Three are roughly 600,000 to 700,000 hybrid electric cars (so about 325,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used) and about 70,000 purely electric cars (so about 140,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used). So purely electric and electric/hybrid cars have reduced demand for gasoline by roughly 465,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

Comment: Re:Extended Range (Score 2) 97

by Teancum (#48678007) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

Lotus also retooled the production line that Tesla was using, which is another thing that killed the Roadster. Lotus didn't have a problem with Tesla continuing their relationship (well, sort of), but that would have also required some additional engineering effort to retool the customized components that Tesla was using.

In short, like you said... it would require a whole new redesign from basically a clean sheet of paper that only superficially looks like the original Roadster. The battery technology would still be largely the same, but even that has evolved over the years.

Comment: Re:Kodak died with Kodachrome (Score 1) 88

by Dogtanian (#48677361) Attached to: Kodak-Branded Smartphones On the Way
Addendum; More seriously, Kodak appears to have quietly discontinued *all* its slide films around three years ago:-

http://www.thephoblographer.co...

It wasn't immediately obvious, especially as they'd been discontinuing variants and paring down the range for years prior, but it appears that the slide films they discontinued that time were *the only ones remaining*, "I’m confirming that we did send a notice to dealers today that we will be discontinuing our three slide films" (not simply "discontinuing three slide films").

Given that there's no mention of slide films on their site any more (go there and see if you can find any (*)) and no sign of new stock available through retailers, it's pretty clear that they managed something far more significant than the discontinuation of Kodachrome itself with far, *far* fewer people noticing.

Huge irony is that Fujifilm- who were much more willing to move into the digital age and thus prospered whereas Kodak didn't- still sells slide film, along with traditional colour and black-and-white negative and instant (Polaroid-style) film.

(*) Colour and black-and-white negative films listed, but no transparency:- http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/...

Comment: Wow.. imagine if your gasoline car did this. (Score 2) 97

by Maxo-Texas (#48677345) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

4 years after you bought it, it was up to 500 mile range and getting 50 mpg.

The range increases must partially also translate to the "refill cost" so it's gotten less expensive to drive over time.

Impressed-- range of electric cars was the main challenge factor (until the recent gasoline price drop).

Electric at 12c/kwh runs about 1/4 the cost of gasoline at $3.50 ($3.50/100 miles vs $14/100 miles). My electricity runs 10.3/kwh and houston gasoline is down to $1.99 here (Waxahachi has $1.91 gasoline as of 12/21).

So about $3/100 miles electric and $8/100 miles gasoline right now.

Apparently you do NOT want electric cars in Hawaii (something like 27c/wkh).

It doesn't take many electric cars to kill 1% of oil demand and cut $40 to $50 per barrel off the top price for a barrel of oil.

Comment: Extended Range (Score 4, Insightful) 97

by Firethorn (#48677257) Attached to: Tesla Roadster Update Extends Range

Summary: Lots of improvements in a number of areas can make a big, big difference.

Since ~2008 I know they've increased the energy density of their 18650 cells by 20-30%, which would correspond to a 20-30% increase in range no matter what. After that it starts adding up quick.

I wonder if they might end up restarting roadster production. For a small car manufacturer that could even be fairly logical - produce as many as you can for a relatively short period of time(few years), then shut down production for a few years to let the demand recover and grow.

Perhaps more importantly, increasing the range of a car from 250 miles to ~400 also means that you could put a smaller battery pack in that costs nearly half as much, making it more affordable.

It also helps show the longevity of Battery Electronic Vehicles. Though it's only been two years since they stopped producing it, they're still producing not just maintenance parts, but serious upgrades.

Comment: Re:Kodak died with Kodachrome (Score 1) 88

by Dogtanian (#48677181) Attached to: Kodak-Branded Smartphones On the Way

There is no Kodak. Fuck whatever is calling itself Kodak today. Kodak died with Kodachrome in 2010.

Get over yourself. Kodachrome was an important product in its day, but it was never *ever* the be-all-and-end-all of Kodak.

I'm pretty sure that latterly the print films (Gold et al) massively outsold it, and the sad truth (from an apparent Kodak insider, "Rowland Mowrey") was that by the late-80s- even before Velvia came out, and long, *long* before digital was eating into it- photographers weren't interested in Kodachrome any more:-

EK had some seriously upgraded Kodachrome films in R&D in the 80s, and sent samples to various professionals at the time. This included the HS Kodachrome with an EI of 400.

NO ONE WANTED THEM!

Read that. NO ONE WANTED THEM. EK could not sell them. They wanted Ektachrome or color negative film. So, that is what they got.

Sorry, but I was there as it happened.

Look for my name on the patent for the yellow color developing agent. It is CD6. Been there, seen it happen. [..] People stopped buying right after the introduction of some serious upgrades to the entire film line, the ones you like right now. Then, when approached with further improvements in speed and grain, with no sacrifice in color, no one was interested.

Do you think EK develops a film and abandons it with no market research? How stupid do you think they are? Back in the 80s, they sent samples to professionals to test out before formal introduction. Reaction was blase. It was "we want Ektachrome, give us more". Remember, there was no Fuji Velvia at this time. The market was Kodachrome and Ektachrome vs Vericolor. So, the market in professionals and amateurs wanted Ektachrome, current Kodachrome, Vericolor, and Gold.

There you have it.

I don't agree either, but that is a fact.

None of what I (or he) said is to say that Kodachrome was a bad film, nor that Ektachrome was better- just that people didn't want it, and by the end clearly weren't buying it in quantities sufficient to justify manufacturing it and keeping even the final lab (for *all* Kodachrome processing worldwide) open.

Comment: Re:Stupid/Misleading Title (Score 1) 117

by Teancum (#48676633) Attached to: US Navy Sells 'Top Gun' Aircraft Carrier For One Penny

Even if it was sold for a penny, there may still be contract restriction on resale as well as criminal and civil restrictions on what other things they can do with such things. North Korea in particular is banned from the sale of munitions (including computer software in some cases), so I think ITAR would definitely apply to a used but functional aircraft carrier. At the very least, a "right of first refusal" clause could be put into any sales contract where the DOD would need to be offered and informed about any resale in anything close to its current form. Historical easements might also be applied by the various historical organizations that could further complicate any resale or even use by anybody except for demolition without having those easements being cleared.

I would agree with you that turning it from a sale into a contract does make some legal distinction though, as it can mean that the DOD would be required to address issues like asbestos found in compartments that weren't documented, classified documents that weren't properly removed before the contract, and a few other minor issue of mainly liability that the Department of Defense would need to address in a demolitions contract that instead would need to be held by the company doing the demolition work.

Comment: "Commodore is back!!! (again)" - The Smartphone (Score 1) 88

by Dogtanian (#48675471) Attached to: Kodak-Branded Smartphones On the Way

Anyway, I'm holding out for a Commodore smart phone!

Why? We all know by this point that such a thing would almost certainly consist of the "chickenhead" logo slapped on some otherwise generic middle-of-the-road smartphone hardware by a third-party licensor armed with a "Commodore is back!" press release (dumbly repeated by the mainstream press) and designed to exploit nostalgia as cheaply and with as little effort as possible.

They might even slap a cheap pastiche of the C64 case on the front if you're *very* lucky (cough).

As I've previously commented, the Commodore and Amiga brands and IP are a confusing mess, and many of the names have been exploited for very cheap nostalgic purposes. The same company that made the Commodore 64x- i.e. a PC in a case that at least *looked* like the computer it was meant to be "resurrecting"- also made new "Vic" all-in-one PCs that looked little to nothing like their namesake and even worse sold HTPC cases that didn't even resemble the original Amiga line under names of classic machines like Amiga 1000.

So, seriously. Commodore is long-dead, and while overpriced hardware is still sold to exploit the rabid diehards who want to run "Amiga OS" in 2014, anything likely to end up on a smartphone *will* be meaningless name whoring that has nothing to do with anything Commodore themselves did. Whoever "officially" owns the relevant fragment of the disputed rights this week means sod all.

If you want a "Commodore" smartphone, get a sticker from some guy on eBay, stick it on the phone of your choice, and it'll be as much a "Commodore" as anything produced by a licensor of a licensor of a guy who once knew the third owner of the rights to the "Commodore plus/4" brand after it was retrieved them from Gateway's dumpster in the late 1990s.

Comment: Re:Umm, no. (Score 4, Informative) 88

by Dogtanian (#48675125) Attached to: Kodak-Branded Smartphones On the Way

That's not Kodak, as they are dead. In their dying spasm they sold their name so it can be placed on mediocre rebadged crap.

Pretty much identical to what happened to 'Polaroid'. Every corpse has its maggots, I suppose.

While it's true that this *is* what happened to Polaroid- that is, the original company is effectively dead and liquidated (*) and the post-2001 "Polaroid" is an unrelated company that bought the name (**) and some of the assets- it technically *isn't* what happened to Kodak.

The present-day Kodak is still the same company. They went into bankruptcy protection, were forced to sell some things off, (***) and then emerged from that about 18 months ago.

That's not to say that they won't be indulging in name licensing anyway, and in this case it's unclear how much- if any- involvement Kodak themselves will have in the manufacture of this phone, or its sale.

In fact, before the bankruptcy it was clear to me that Kodak's problem was that in order to stay afloat in the short term they were being forced to sell off everything that would enable them to survive in the long term (i.e. patents and technical assets). My guess was that- at best- Kodak would survive as a massively pared down shadow of its former self, and at worst would be entirely liquidated and its name sold off to be whored out for its recognition in rebranding cheap generic electronics made by anonymous manufacturers in the Far East (a la "Polaroid").

Then again, even if the core of the "original" Kodak survives with ownership of its name intact, it's open to question how meaningful this would be if most of what made it "Kodak" had been sold off and it had to become little more than a brand-licensing operation anyway.

(*) As far as I can tell, the original Polaroid still "exists", but only as a dormant (and renamed) legal entity that conducts no business and I'm assuming is kept on life support for purely legal reasons related to liabilities after the bankruptcy.

(**) Actually, AFAICT, the company that bought the Polaroid name (apparently quite dubious) themselves went bankrupt, so I'm not sure if the current owners are actually "Polaroid 3"(!!!) Not that it matters much. To be fair, the current owners do appear to be trying to use Polaroid's legacy more respectfully as far as cameras go (e.g. portable printers and cameras with that Lady Gaga tie-up a couple of years back), but they're still continuing the previous owner's model of licensing the name out to third-party distributors who use it to rebrand low-quality generic LCD TVs et al.

(***) I'm not entirely clear what was sold off. One report suggested (if I read it correctly) that they were going to give the film business to the UK pension fund to settle liabilities there, but from what I can tell that's not actually what happened in the end, and Kodak themselves still control the film business.

The absent ones are always at fault.

Working...