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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 267

Underground would make it cheaper, not more expensive

Well, they'd have to send in trucks to demolish the concrete... and they'd have to do it in sections so that they didn't make the entire parking lot inaccessible. The fact that it is underground would restrict the kinds of vehicles and equipment they could bring in, making it harder to acquire, and the costs for this is not cheap. We are already having some work done in our parkade this summer and the fact that they have to get special trucks in to fit down there is not an insignificant portion of the cost. And that's just for a couple of areas in the parkade, if we needed it for the entire thing, the cost would be tremendous.

Oh, so you're a disaster away from being in a disadvantageous situation? Then I submit, your situation is far more untenable than you realize, and you should consider that your problems are far more extensive than merely the provisioning of electric vehicles.

Not really.,.. there are many other buildings around that we could purchase from, but they are all from around the same period, and are generally not equipped with electrical in the parking areas. We just cannot afford to get anything in a new building, where such hookups are pretty standard now.

As a person who I see as somewhat intransigently resisting EVs for no good reason....

As I said before, you are dismissive of the points that I consider to be important. We established this some time ago. I'm not offended by this, I'm only pointing it out.

If we want to consider the average driving? Well, you can see MightyMartian's numbers. It's well within EV's capabilities at an easy level. The need for a 4-minute fillup is overwrought.

If I forget to fill up the previous night and need to still get to work on time, the need for a 4-minute fillup on my way to work is paramount

Driving 10 hours a day? Well, you've already walked away from that one without a clear answer, but there is a dollar value to you, most likely.

Yes... if EV's weren't already more expensive, and were practical for me to charge at home, I'd be entirely happy with renting a gasoline vehicle for the few times in a year that I *really* needed one... so yes, there is definitely a dollar value there.

But realiistically, EV's are not going to be coming down in price that much in my lifetime, and I don't see myself being able to afford to live in a building that is new enough to have outlets at every parking stall.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 267

Thousands of dollars for each unit? That's fucking terrible. Unless you have special circumstances, that is unreasonable for what is a relatively simple process. Of course, I wouldn't put it past someone to try to overcharge just because they think you haven't the foggiest clue how much it should really cost. It happens.

If the parking were outside, it would probably not be as expensive.... but most multi-family dwellings such as apartment buildings and townhouses around here have underground parking.

If your building suddenly becomes uninhabitable because of a tornado, fire, or other hazard, you'd have no choice but to move. Then why shouldn't such be available?

Our only option at that point would be to either downscale considerably and settle for a place about half of the size of our current home, which would be extraordinarily cramped for our lifestyle, or to find another similar sized condo in another building of similar age, and no more likely to have been equipped with more modern facilities. One could suggest that we temporarily rent for a while while our building was rebuilt in such a circumstance, but it's a foregone certainty that the prices per square foot in the rebuild would still be substantially higher, making a mortgage unviable.

Without you defining it, that's not as good a position as you may think. Not that chasing after you, and your needs, whatever they may be, is a good thing, but compared to the vast number of people, do you think an EV could satisfy their needs?

Well, I don't think I'm an anomaly, and I don't think my situation is particularly unique. I'm not everybody either, however, so I'm sure an EV would be suitable for a vast number of people that currently do not own one. I think that the biggest deterring factor to their not being more popular than they are, despite how well they would meet people's needs is their up-front cost, even after rebates, and the inconvenience that this cost creates to financing. Even if an EV may cost less in the long run, people are invariably going to feel that they need to get by on what they have today.

You may be right that costs of EV's will come down as they become more popular, but again, that's living in the hypothetical or ideal world, rather than the real one of the here, and the now.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 267

How much money would it take for you to deal with that hassle? Cash in your hand, how much money would it take?

Since you asked, if EV's cost *LESS* to buy than an otherwise visually comparable gasoline-powered car, that'd be an adequate reason.... except again for the fact that I can't charge at home.

Oh, but you said to that....

That's a non-persuasive argument, since putting in such equipment would be comparatively trivial.

Trivial, yes. Cheap? No. For my building, it would amount to a renovation going into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and would result in an assessment on the owners running into the thousands of dollars for each unit.

I know this because the subject has come up before at one of recent strata meetings. Suffice to say that this went over like a lead balloon with the owners... even those that might have considered getting an EV. it's simply not going to happen.

Say you were in a place where it was already done, do you think it would have added much to the construction costs?

But I'm not in a place where it's already done... nor am I likely to be, since even though I could probably get a good deal if I sold my current place, the money I'd get still wouldn't leave me with enough to buy a comparably sized unit in a much newer building that would have infrastructure for charging electric cars at night. As wonderful as it would be to live in an ideal world where everybody gets everything that they'd want out of life, that's not a world that anybody but the extremely wealthy live in.

And speaking of costs....

So you think. The thing is, you're leaving off the cost of pollution, maintenance, and other hassles that arise for an gasoline car, that are reduced with an electric.

All of those costs added together take years, at least as long as it takes to pay off the car, before I'd start to see any savings at all over a gasoline vehicle. And given that financing over any practical period typically makes the monthly payments higher than what I'd otherwise spend on a similar-sized vehicle including gas, it's only going to push the time before I'd start to see any savings that many more years further down the road.

I'm aware that what I'm talking about here is my convenience... and I've tried to define those conveniences quite specifically, but basically your counter to them appears to be naught much but "Oh, that doesn't matter".... except of course, when it does.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 267

I'm not the original poster here, but let me answer the questions anyways... bear in mind that this *MY* opinion, based on *MY* experiences. if EV's work great for you, that's fine... but if you are going to ask why somebody might not, let me elaborate on some details that I personally identify with.

If you *wanted* to drive 10 hours in a day, you are completely hosed with an EV. Owing to the fact that this is something I will do a few times a year, this is a significant factor. Also, I'm not keen on dealing with the hassle of having to arrange to rent a vehicle from someone else just for those occasions.

Again, speaking for myself, I couldn't even charge an EV where I live because I live in an apartment building and there are no power outlets for vehicles in the building's parking facilities makes an EV a complete non-starter for me, even though I live in a pretty high-density population area and a commuter EV might otherwise be a good idea. EV's need fast and convenient recharging stations that are as ubiquitous as gas stations, and take no more tiime to recharge than it does to fill up (I can refill my 80L tank from empty to full in less than 4 minutes... which is at least 5 times faster than the amount of time it takes to recharge an EV on even the fastest charging systems).

Finally electric cars are priced much higher than gasoline-powered vehicles. This makes financing more difficult, and the difference is not even compensated for by the money that you save on gasoline until you have been driving it for many years. If you have financed the car, the money you are spending each month on paying for it can exceed what you would have otherwise spent buying a new gasoline-powered car of about the same size *PLUS* the cost of gas, only adding to the total time it takes to start to see any savings.

Basically, for myself the choice to not get an EV just amounts to nobody making an EV just as convenient for me to own as an gas-powered car, if or when someone can do that, I'm sold.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 0) 267

Even if you are using coal-power to generate electricity, said power plant is stationary, and because it is generating very large amounts of power, the amount of pollution you would be producing at such plants would be substantially less than the total amount of pollution produced by millions of moving vehicle. It is comparatively easier for governments to legislate environmental controls on companies that produce power in that way than it is on private individually owned vehicles as well. Plus, if there is already a good electric vehicle infrastructure. cleaner energy production measures can always be employed as they become more cost efficient, and the heavier polluting systems phased out, resulting in a *far* greener and more sustainable vehicle technology.

Comment Re:If the form factor is tablet, then it is a tabl (Score 1) 85

So it's not a typical tablet computer... there's nothing wrong with that, but the entire notion of calling something a tablet computer in the first place comes from what such a computer LOOKS like, not what it might do. Tablet means a flat slab, and if it looks like a tablet, then it is a tablet, by definition.

Comment Re:If the form factor is tablet, then it is a tabl (Score 1) 85

The word "tablet" predates computers, you know, and referred to any (generally portable) flat slab which may be used for inscription or writing, whether it was wood, stone, wax, or any other material. Your monitor is not a tablet because it is probably not a flat slab, your chopping board, however, is. Tablet computers are called such because they have the form factor of a tablet, not because of their capabilities.

Comment If the form factor is tablet, then it is a tablet (Score 1) 85

For fuck's sake, that's why tablets are called tablets in the first place, because they are... you know... shaped like a tablet.

Suggesting that it shouldn't be called one because it's actually a portable home console is is like saying that you shouldn't call an EV a car because it's not powered by gasoline.

Comment Re:How do they ban it on privately owned phones? (Score 1) 65

Obviously they could probably control calls from and to the device if those calls were actually being governed by the company, but the articl;e says not only are these things banned for work purposes, they ouright banned on the entire device if that device is used for work. Presumably, if the device is privately owned, it is used for things *other* than work as well.... but this policy would seem to suggest that encryption apps that do not allow the company to track communication with them would be prohibited on *ANY* device that is ever used for work, even if said communication had nothing to do with work.

Plus, if they do not actually prohibit it to that extent, then there is nothing stopping people from using said devices to communicate with eachother about work-related stuffs outside of regular work-hours anyways.

Comment Am I the only one... (Score 5, Interesting) 128

.... who can't help but cheer at my screen when they nail one of those landings? Now I finally understand how sports fans feel when they watch a game and do the same thing ;)

One thing nobody can deny about them is optimism. ;) Seriously, their IPS numbers are, pardon the pun, out of this world. $200k per booster launch. $500k per tanker launch. I mean, really? Good luck with that. No, seriously, good luck with that; I won't be expecting anything close to that, but please by all means prove me wrong ;) ITS would be a great system to have, I've been playing around with some Venus trajectories with it recently. Looks like it can do a low-energy transit with nearly 300 tonnes of payload from LEO and back again with the same, over 400 if starting at a high orbit - but from an economics perspective the high energy transfers actually make more sense.

I noticed a lot of people were confused about why Musk wanted the trips to be so short and was willing to sacrifice so much payload to do so - many assumed it had to do with radiation or something. But the issue is, when your craft costs so much but your launch costs are cheap, you can't have it spending all of its time drifting in deep space, you need to get it back for a new mission as soon as possible. There's a balancing point, in that if you try to go too fast, you reduce useful payload below the point of making up for it with going faster - but a minimum energy trajectory is just not optimal when the ratio between launch costs and transit vehicle cost is so extreme. I come up with the same thing from Venus as they were getting for Mars, although for the Venus case you end up aerobraking to a highly elliptical orbit rather than to the surface for ISRU refill (you need ISRU, but for the ascent stages, so it's not realistic to do so for the return stage in the nearer term). So for Venus they get no refill like on Mars, but they also don't have to do a powered landing nor do an ascent on return - it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are quite accessible with it.

Comment Re:Great strides (Score 1) 128

It depends what you mean by "refurbishing"; each element is different.

The solid rocket boosters, for example, suffered a hard impact into salt water. They then had to be fished out of the water. And of course you don't just "refill" a SRB, they have to be taken apart and recast, then put back together.

The ET is disposable, and had to be rebuilt from scratch.

The orbiter was legitimately reusable, but with design flaws.

I don't blame the shuttle program - they were sort of pigeonholed into this dead end by circumstances. The concept came about during the heyday of the Apollo Programme, when NASA budgets were serious. It was supposed to be a much more reusable, much more maintainable, and somewhat smaller system. It was supposed to then have a huge flight rate supporting all of these big projects that were on NASA's docket, including a permanent moon base and a huge manned orbital station dwarfing ISS, which was supposed to replace Skylab.

But of course, Vietnam and the realities of having soundly trounced the USSR in the space race led to their budgets being slashed, which pushed the program into ever more untenable positions until it was nothing more than a jobs programme. Forget full flyback reusability of all parts. Forget the titanium frame for the shuttle, which would have let it run hot and thus not required so sensitive of a TPS. Go begging for money and be forced to modify the design to meet Air Force requirements, pushing you into an inferior design position. On and on.

If I'd fault them for anything, it'd be for going straight for a full reusable workhorse rather than a small-scale pilot programme first. But those were the days of optimism. Optimism which only recently seems to start being regained.

Either way, the Falcon boosters are a very different beast. A vertical soft landing is hugely different from the SRBs, yet the thermal issues are far easier than with the Shuttle. And the Merlins were designed from the start under the principle of preventing the need for a full teardown. That doesn't mean that they will be cheap to reuse. But it does mean that they have the possibility of it.

I do think SpaceX had a rather clever strategy, in that while their goal was reusable, they made a rocket that in the process was cheap as a disposable. So they could get volume and flight history while working on getting the kinks out. They may have flown too close to the sun with the densified propellants and (externally) unlined COPVs, but obviously, with a company like this, their whole existence is to push the envelope.

Comment Re:Uhh... (Score 4, Insightful) 215

Yeah, basically this. Find the software that's closest to what you want to do and get on their community software and ask if there's already a way to do it. Your idea probably isn't unique, but just in case it is, the community can give feedback as to whether it's a good idea or not, and then if it is good their docs or people in the community will tell you how to put in a feature request. At that point, follow most of the advice others are giving about building or buying.

Comment Re: Awesome (Score 3, Insightful) 128

Most of Europe agrees with you. And even the US agrees with you up through high school plus with various forms of assistance for college, including state-subsidies, particularly for state colleges, and federal subsidies (direct subsidies, tax credits, and tax breaks), roughly $80B/year each. Pell grants alone cost the government $35B.

Comment Re:Edge to edge screen hard for me to use (Score 1) 73

Everyone puts their phone in case, so that adds a bezel.

To the contrary - the edge of the case, even on phones with a thin bezel - prevents the edges of the screens from being used. This always gets me with text selection on Android.

With no bezel, you can't have a case wrap around the top edge. From the perspective of selling screens and replacement phones it's a fabulous idea.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power mouthwashes = 1 Microscope