Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Comment from an electric car owner (Score 1) 493

First I own an electric car (Ford Focus Electric). I'm not wealthy but when gas was high I leased one before the cost of the lease and insurance would be less than my monthly fuel cost in my 2005 SUV. My company also just installed chargers so I had free electricity from my office.

We had some issues at work when we only had two spaces for 3 fully electric vehicles and 1 plug in hybrid. We talk on our internal communication tool to try and move so everyone can charge. The real issue is while my vehicle can charge in 3 hours from empty two of the vehicles took 7 hours as they did not have 6.6kwh onboard chargers. The plug in hybrid also could charge in about an hour (Prius plug in) and as they could make it home without charging it was rather upsetting to those who might need the charge to get home. This did cause some issues and made us group together into those that switch spots. I volunteered to plug in during the afternoon and the other two full EVs plugged in during the morning. We kicked the Prius to using a regular outlet as he could easily charge off of that. This worked until they added two more charging spots which allowed us all to plug in. I can understand people being upset even if it costs money because some could not get home without plugging in.

Right now with how things are I really think any vehicle that is full EV should always get the plug and if a plug in hybrid is there you should be allowed to unplug them. Why because those with an EV might not be able to get home where as the car with an engine could even if it costs more money. Also I really think we need 6.6kwh chargers in all the cars 3.3kwh takes too long to share spots in many cases because of how slow they are. Last would be adding more spaces to deal with demand!!

My vehicle was a test and while I love having an electric vehicle and hardly ever getting gas (I still have an SUV for long trips) I'm not sure I will be getting another one until the range is better, 80 miles can go quick and when it is cold out that turns into 50 miles of range which I wasn't aware of when I leased the car.

Comment Re:Why do they need ANY info? (Score 1) 422

Google absolutely did want all the data set back to their data center. Porsche clearly states this.

Hmm this is interesting because my biggest complaint with this would be how much data does this use? Sending data like this frequently would probably start to add up and I would think that could open up Google to complaints/lawsuits from using more data than necessary.

Comment Re:18 billion dollars, good luck with that (Score 1) 301

$18 billion is a ridiculously high fine. Has any company been charged such an amount? This is not a fine, it's more like a company death sentence. VW made $14 billion profit in 2014, so no way can they afford or are liable for something as high as $18 billion for one error.

The cars involved in this where created for a few years not just one so yes it would make sense to have a fine that is rather large and would convince other companies that this would be a bad idea to circumvent testing in the future.

Also whatever the government fines them might be small compared to what the consumers who purchased these vehicles could do as they entered into a contract where the selling party was committing fraud. That could easily outstrip the fine with how much they will be dragged into court.

Comment Re:so when (Score 5, Interesting) 367

Only if eBay is telling you what computer to use, when to use it , when you can list and what you can charge. Oh and they can dictate that you are not allowed to use competitive services while listing an item on their site. Not sure how Facebook and YouTube fit into this as they are services that you use for free via advertising.

Comment Re:Youtube (Score 1) 394

I still haven't gone to the effort to block these on my TV. But normally it was 4 or 5 seconds before I could skip them, which was usually before you even knew what the ad was about. But the last week I've seen a few that refuse to let me skip the ads, AND the ads were entirely unrelated to the content as well. Screw em. Let youtube go back to being free with no one making money from them, hobbyists only with no youtube pros. Sorry PewDiePie, you need a real job.

I have to say my favorite is when I brought up a trailer for a kids movie on YouTube and before that it played an advertisement for some horror movie. Yes you heard that right before watching a trailer for a kids movie they showed a movie that made my 5 year old scared because I couldn't skip it for 5 SECONDS.

Comment Re:4k downsampled to 1080p is AWESOME (Score 1) 181

I was always wondering why a 4k video playing on a 1080p looks so awesome compared to same 1080P video. Well, the 4K and 1080P uses 4 pixels in a square with the same chroma. When you downsample the 4k on a 1080p, it goes to a 1/1 pixel matching, so no more 4 square pixels. You get a more detailed video with more vibrant colors and detail. Its crazy how better it looks. So the true visual quality is lost in the encoding on 1080p!

We are being robbed of visual quality, so more pixels is a selling point. (mostly)

I have been hearing this and just purchased a 4k video camera thinking that I can downsample it if necessary or I can keep it 4K for Youtube and in the future my kids/grandkids will be able to enjoy the high quality video I took.

Comment Re: In other words (Score 1) 318

It's doubly a pain to see the same ones when binge watching.

Those are absolutely the worst. Watching the same preview the second time is almost as bad as when I pull out a years old DVD and have* to sit through ancient trailers before I can start watching the movie. By the third time I see the same preview the same day, it's worse.

*: or use a non-compliant DVD player that allows skipping this shit. Either/or.

This is why I ripped all my movies or purchased digital copies and when I rent a movie I rip it, watch it, and delete it. Typically if I want to watch it again I will buy it but the one thing I'm tired of is some movie for my kids that has a 5-10 minutes of trailers for movies they have watched or don't want to see.

Comment Re: In other words (Score 1) 318

More to the point, I would not pay for Netflix with ads. Netflix is quite reasonably priced at the moment. If they needed to charge more to avoid using ads, I would be okay with that. Of course they could charge sufficiently more that I wouldn't be okay with it, but I don't think they need to. The whole reason I use Netflix instead of TV is that I despise ads. HBO Now's advertising before each GoT episode really pisses me off, and makes me not want to use the service.

I'm with you on this I don't want to have to sit through ads and using HBO where they show an ad for a show which seems to be the same ad each time I watch! I'll switch to Amazon Prime and stop Netflix if they start advertising.

I mentioned this somewhere else but Netflix should have a section that includes trailers if they want people to watch the shows they are producing. Granted I bet just creating high quality content and letting people know at the top of the App will help then it will spread through Facebook and Twitter.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1094

You are forgetting that the companies producing most of these products can easily produce more with either the same resources and shifts or possibly add another shift at a known cost and produce more of the item (Economies of Scale). Either way the factory is being utilized more which lowers the total cost of each unit. Now this could be wrong if the factory is already utilized 100% but typically that is not the case. Heck I bet most companies would prefer more demand and to hire more workers than to have slacking demand due to less people having the ability to buy their products.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1094

Two important things to consider: 1. It will increase prices of products as well, so at the end of the day it's just a cycle where nothing really happens. 2. Do you actually think the same amount of employees will be employed if companies are mandated to pay them more? Many of them will lose jobs. Minimum wage hikes tend to hurt two parties the most: 1. Small businesses, who are typically operating on rather small margins anyway. Unlike larger businesses, they can't easily move to places with lower minimum wage or offshore jobs. 2. Middle class, because they suffer the increase in costs incurred by minimum wage hikes, but don't benefit at all from it because they're already above the minimum wage. Minimum wage increases try to tackle a real problem, but do nothing to actually solve it. Minimum wage should be adjusted in accordance with inflation and nothing else.

You are very wrong on both cases. First the market sets the prices and since the market is competitive the business that is making a profit will be forced to keep the same price or risk loosing all their customers. Second the employee costs won't rise that much and you have a better shot at getting more customers if people have extra money to spend.

As far as small businesses they have a chance for more customers and this will be better for them than the small increase in costs. For those in Middle class you are right they might not see anything at first but eventually if you are making close to the minimum wage you can possibly leave to take an easier job to argue for a pay raise after all this is what the employee market has turned to.

Last increasing demand will not cause increased prices of products because most factories can create more products then the market can sell. After all I don't know when the last time I said wow I can't just go to the store and purchase "X" because it is sold out unless you count release days but that is a different story and prices wouldn't increase because of increased wages. Grocery stores might see the opposite where they sell more fresh produce and have less waste which would help the bottom line more than any wage increase would hurt it.

Comment Re:Privacy? (Score 1) 776

Please. More money does NOT make for better students. The poorest of students have often times been the best of students. Each individual student needs some THING to ignite a hunger for knowledge within him. If/when that hunger is lit, nothing can hold a student back, short of death.

We Americans, despite the economic "hardships" of the past decade, remain among the wealthiest people in history, world wide. We don't starve. We aren't dropping in the streets from diseases. We don't have open warfare in our streets. Barring some violent weather now and then, we almost all go home to find our homes intact every day.

More money in the education system, or even more money in the classroom, will NOT make for better students. History proves that idea to be FALSE.

Our education system is badly flawed, and that flaw can be traced, at least in part, to the idea that more money can "fix" education. We have pampered little children who are distracted by meaningless nonsense. Kim Kardashian? Reality TV? Rock stars? Sports? Oh yeah - drugs. I can understand drug usage by the dirt poor, who live miserable lives. Those who spend all day out scavenging for a little bit of food, and still go to bed hungry - I can forgive them for trying to escape reality. Our little rich kids, with to much time on their hands? Escape from reality? They are LOSERS. And, we have raised them to be LOSERS.

Money isn't the answer.

Kids need to learn morals. Kids need some hardship. Kids need to WORK for the privilege of higher education - and I do NOT MEAN that they should be impoverished for life in exchange for an education. I mean, they should have to WORK for the privilege, instead of being pampered.

Keep the money. Instead, go into the classrooms, and get tough. We've needed a strong dose of tough love in the classrooms for the past 30 years, or more. Crack the whip, and stop treating kids like babies. Just drop pre-school, headstart, kindergarten, and all the rest of that shit.

I started school at age 5, and went straight into first grade. One month after my 18th birthday, I graduated high school. No amount of pre-schooling implemented since 1960 has improved on the final results among high school grads. NOTHING has improved those final results.

All that money has been WASTED.

If you have an old rotten ship, which threatens to sink every time it sails, how can you justify continuing to send it to sea? How can you justify painting it, again and again, and calling it seaworthy?

That is precisely the state of our education system. It is sinking, and we continue to paint it, to make it look pretty.

Cut the funds, and force school administrators to actually EDUCATE children!

I agree schools do not need more money what is really needed is a better curriculum that brings out the students desire to learn with the goal of being prepared for the work force. Right now schools typically have three things they teach to depending on the school. The first is the test which is how students and teachers are graded. The problem is the work force is not a series of tests with 2 hour time limits. The second thing they teach is menial tasks which is really for manufacturing which is disappearing in this country and part of the reason why many say the education system does not work. The third is they teach kids to go to college and while this can be good not every child will go to college so they come out with little ability to get a job.

I disagree with the crack the whip mentality that doesn't work either and will probably end up worse in many respects. Also Pre-K and Kindergarten are very important to develop a love of learning in kids which is really what school at a young age should be about. School should develop a child so they desire knowledge and find ways to learn this is what our kids need. A school needs to be a safe haven for those that crave knowledge and not a place to punish for if you make a mistake.

First off kids that go to Pre-K typically do better in school

Comment Re:1000 times (Score 4, Informative) 622

This is very true. As someone with a Ford Focus Electric many people keep telling me I made a bad decision because of cheap gas prices. I tell them I enjoy the ride and it is working out fine having no fuel expense and as my company has chargers I fill up for near $0 each month considering I hardly plus in at home. However these people are purchasing large SUVs will complain bitterly when/if gas prices go back up.

Comment Re:Exiting...Giving up...Spinning off (Score 1) 188

Say what you will about Sony but in the 80s and 90s you want a damned good cutting edge piece of gear that will easily last the better part of a decade if not longer? Then YOU BOUGHT SONY

Sony's quality was acceptable enough in the 70's and 80's but had already begun to turn to shit by the time the 90's were underway.

If you wanted very good Japanese electronics, you bought Pioneer or Kenwood. If you wanted damned good, you BOUGHT DENON. :)

I agree with this!! I had a Sony Dual Tape Deck from around 1985 that still worked as of 5 years ago when my Mom gave it away. In 95 I purchased a Sony 5 disk CD changer why because my Dual Tape Deck worked so well. Fast forward 3 months and the CD player doesn't work anymore as it was still under warranty I took it to be repaired. After a week the shop calls me back says they cannot fix it but have contacted Sony and they will refund my purchase. I then purchase another Sony CD player thinking I just got a lemon. This one has broken just after the warranty was up and I had to pay to have it fixed. Needless to say I don't purchase Sony products now because I want to own the best but because I'm settling on something that is affordable or meets my needs.

I've seen this time and time again with companies if you want to stay high end KEEP YOUR PRODUCT QUALITY HIGH!! If you want to lower quality you better lower the price or risk loosing market share rapidly!

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist