Seriously, you can't be this daft. The operator, of course, with the price rolled into the service cost.
You claimed that you're unlikely to have more than a dud or two in a truck, dismissing the idea that failure rate *per* *battery* would be the same as anything else, when I pointed out that the operator would have to manage the cost of rotating out end-of-life batteries.
Your answer to "how will the operator handle disposal costs of bad batteries?" was "Oh, that's not a real consideration." Then you call me daft for pointing out that it *is* a real thing.
No, they're not. Even your laptop battery estimates its capacity, and that's about as simple as li-ion battery packs get.
I said estimating capacity is easy, but estimating integrity is hard. Will the fucking battery EXPLODE UNDER YOUR TRUCK? A simple capacity measure won't tell you if it's dangerously damaged.
No, it's the manufacturer's issue to ensure that the product meets its stated usage specs - in this case, the specs including safe handling of damage and X number of swap cycles.
Unfortunately, the manufacturer doesn't have control of the batteries once they've been placed into a truck.
Just like gas stations check their gas for impurities that can cause damage to an engine?
No you miserable fucking idiot, more like how Blue Rhino inspects and tests every tank for safety defects at every exchange. The gas station doesn't swap your god damned fuel tank, so they don't have to inspect it for dangerous leaks and rust spots.
You may as well have said "they'll inspect the electricity they charge it with to make sure it's clean power" if you wanted to make a show of being that stupid.
Tesla's battery packs have an 8 year, unlimited-mile warranty
You still don't know how many 72-pound pieces of iron road debris have smashed into the battery, if the driver used a defective charger to charge the battery at extremely high voltages, if the battery's been damaged by *other*, less scrupulous stations mishandling it, if it's experienced flood damage somehow, and so forth. Determining the actual physical condition of the battery requires labor-intensive inspection, unless you want to just tell everyone those swapped-out batteries carry no warranty and may explode on them and it's not your fault if they do.
In the parallel world where EVs are always catching on fire, and petroleum-fueled vehicles aren't - quite unlike our actual world.
More like in the current world, where the crisis of a vehicle on fire either means the driver is getting roasted or his cargo is getting roasted. If it happens 1 in 10 million times, there's still about 150 million trucks on the road. 200 fatal hazmat incidents occur per year in the US, meaning fuel tanker trucks and (notably) oxygen tankers blowing up. Managing to keep defective, poorly-inspected, "Wull it dun held a chawj, Jeb" batteries from killing your driver is an important risk consideration.
Thank God, as incompetent as Mozilla's management appears, they're still not that stupid.
1) You don't "ask" a child molester to leave the kids alone. MS obviously wants more of a presence in the internet niche of the industry. They've allowed IE to become irrelevant for at least since 2009. They've wasted a ton of money on Edge's development, and MS needs something to make Windows 10 look like its a winner. Its a cheap way for MS to get new Windows 10 users to take a look at their new web browser, and its not like MS makes it impossible to go back to making chrome or an inferior 3rd party browser the default again.
2) Speaking as an actual firefox user, for some inexplicable reason, the CEO of firefox insists on releasing notably inferior web browsers from its previous versions at the beginning of 2015!!! They are slower than the firefox versions from the start of the year, and the older firefox versions were still noticeably slower than the competition. The only reason why the older versions were tolerable was that they weren't horribly slow like your current product! Now I frequently get odd moments when firefox seems to need to hit up the CPU, without browsing activity, and because the firefox code has such poorly implemented threading, the browser will seize up while waiting for firefox to resolve its background knitting! And that's on machines with an i7 desktop CPU, and 16GB of RAM!
3) Its a sign of extreme cluelessness when Beard thinks he can deflect from his failure as a CEO, and blame Microsoft for his incompetence. This isn't 2003; no one thinks of MS as the evil empire anymore; more like the asshole grandpa who still doesn't need a bedpan. How about securing patrons or a financing model after Google decided not to give you a free lunch anymore? How about not releasing new versions with new features that denigrate what little positive opinion firefox has left with its users?!?! Your CTO(?) had the right idea when he suggested chucking non-webkit code and starting from scratch. It sounds like unthinkable refactoring that would leave firefox dead in the water for a year, but at least you would retain your current user base!!! Instead of trying to build a McMansion on top of a crumbling foundation.
4) Since he doesn't code, the only constructive thing Beard can do at this point, is try to help find a CEO less incompetent than he is (preferably with a development background), or at least put a deadline on your resignation within 6 months, in order to force the board to find a replacement.
Wait, who uses VCRs anymore?!
I was trying to be kind of funny, by putting the astrophysicist in the same 1993ish timeframe as Windows 3.1. Maybe I should have made Beverly Hills 90210 the soap instead
It could be no more free than the least free place, and quite possibly less free than that, yes.
Those leaders sought to be elected as leaders, then failed to meet their responsibilities. Nobody forced them to run for office.
When it comes to a truck which will have a sizeable number of large batteries, you're pretty much statistically guaranteed to never have more than a dud or two so long as the battery management process is sound.
In one truck, yes. The frequency of dead batteries, however, will be the same as passenger vehicles; who will dispose of those? The swap-off center will occasionally find a dud battery it can't reinstall in a customer's vehicle, which it then must replace with a new battery it purchases.
By, for example, any of the dozen or so methods already used for this purpose?
All of which are relatively involved. Testing a battery for charge capacity is one thing; testing and inspecting a battery for damage and danger conditions so you don't install it into someone's vehicle and get a lawsuit for "vehicle exploded in a giant flaming blaze" (or drive all your customers away with "we don't test our batteries for anything but charge, and damaged batteries may set your truck on fire") is wholly different. The amount of human labor required will make these inspections labor-intensive.
By rolling that into the swapping cost?
That may result in diesel being the cheaper fuel by far. You could take even odds on the batteries and lure people into your high-margin restaurant while the swap occurs, or try to tack on high-margin value-add services like general mechanical inspections and maintenance.
Battery swap in the much harder case of cars can be done in less than a tenth that time.
There are a lot more batteries on a truck.
You already have, today, stuff mounted to the underside of trailers. It's right where the structural strength is already located and you have tons of open space underneath for easy access and standard form factors.
Fortunately, if you mount batteries under there without a bunch of armored doors and other shit to hold it all together, the cargo container catches fire when the batteries become damaged.
It's also fortunate that most of the air and electronic braking lines are out of the way, instead of bolted all over the bottom of the truck. That doesn't mean mounting won't be a problem--especially mounting in some sane manner, with armored plating to protect the batteries--but it does mean you at least don't have to deal with drive shafts, exhaust systems, and all kinds of other shit, some of which fortunately doesn't even exist in electric cars.
I said their premium model is +$50. You said it's not a premium phone. You just reiterated that it's not a premium phone. The fact of the matter is it's their premium offering.
Oh what a terrible problem! They sell two options, how awful!
The problem isn't with what they sell; the problem is with your argument. Your argument is they don't have a premium phone; the problem with your argument is they sell two options: the basic 16GB option and the premium 64GB option. The fact that their PREMIUM OPTION is cheaper than some Rolls Royce bullshit doesn't mean it's not a premium option.
Of course you can try to dance around words like a politician trying desperately not to let on that he thinks the audience is filled with retards, but I won't let you.
Yes it's all a big conspiracy that all the phone makers - who are also competitors - are colluding on
Ant theory. I've already explained that it's not lucrative to offer SD cards slots on mainline-model phones.
On some models they prefer not to have an exposed, mechanical and relatively bulky (if you're looking at the thinness of modern devices) mechanism for storage and instead use soldered memory to avoid these problems
"Some" being all modern mainline phones, which largely have exposed SIM card slots, exposed USB readers, exposed speakers, and exposed headphone jacks (not even the self-sealing type of jack that repels water).
The reader for my MicroSIM card is at least as large as a MicroSD reader. The MicroSIM is at least 70% thicker than a MicroSD, and itself sits in a plastic carriage that makes it even thicker; this may or may not mean the MicroSIM reader is thicker than a MicroSD reader, since you could certainly make a thick reader to hold a thin card if you really wanted to. You could also make an extremely thin reader, which most are.
None of your arguments actually have any merit.
In absolute numbers, more white people are shot by police than black people, but the former also make up a significantly larger chunk of the population (63% white vs 12% black).
But if you're going to make everyone look at it through the lens of skin pigment, then you also have to do what the producer of those statistics did: take into account the demographics surrounding high crime rates. Police shootings rarely, rarely occur outside the context of the cops interacting with someone in the middle of a violent or headed-towards-violent situation. Though the media is focused on things like that idiot campus cop who shot the guy trying to speed away from a traffic stop, that's NOT the sort of thing that makes up, in any meaningful way, the larger body of numbers. Take into account the wildly higher rates of violent domestic disputes, basic street crime, robberies, and (if nothing else) gang warfare, and the percentage of police shootings involving people of one skin tone relative to the percentage of that skin tone in the population takes a back seat to what that percentage is actually doing when it comes to the sorts of activities that bring wary cops rushing to the scene.
If one insists on comparing skin color percentages in the wider population, compare skin color percentages involved in violent crime before doing math about how often cops have violent encounters with a given group. Or, skip the whole skin color thing, and focus on geography. In places where cops have a hugely higher rate of violent criminals and behavior to deal with, they end up having to use force more often than in places where the population is much less routinely violent.
...of a Slashdot where the editors actually edit submissions and turn them into something approaching standard English.
When actual fucking EDITING commences, I'll consider that worth coming up with the bucks to fly out to Oregon and meet you guys at *Con. Thanks for the invite, though.