Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forcesLinux, Windows redesign

In article
Doomsdrzej wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 20:00:27 -0500, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/06/2018 07:56 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:46:57 -0500, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/06/2018 05:27 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

The biggest problem in even considering a Tesla is that I live in a
very cold climate which, since mid-December, has seen its temperature
go no lower than -25c. In such a climate, the already poor range of an
electric car is even worse and there are good reasons to believe that
it wouldn't even start.

the batteries are heated in cold weather and the cars start just fine.

Are they heated through the use of a block heater or is there some
other solution I'm not aware of?

the batteries are heated and shortly before leaving, you can preheat
the cabin via a smartphone app.

And that heating shortens your range. Or did you think it was
somehow free?

it's effectively free. the impact is a few miles less range, out of
200-300 miles total. most trips are well under that, so it's not even
remotely a concern.

Say what?

Honda FitEV - 82 miles
KIA SoulEV - 93 miles
Mercedes Benz B-Class Electric Drive - 124 miles
Mitsubishi I-MiEV - 106 miles
Nissan Leaf - 75 miles
Smart electric Drive - 90 miles
Volkswagen e-Up - 99 miles
Chevy Spark EV - 82 miles
BMW i3 - 114 miles

Not everybody can afford a Tesla.

Before I retired my daily commute was between 60 and 70 miles. Very
close for some of these cars without using some of that electricity
for heat. One detour because of an accident on the highway and I am
screwed. And what do you think it will cost to have it flatbeded to
my house? Not to mention the wasted time, inconvenience and danger of
being stranded on the side of the road. especially in -20 temps.

Electric cars are about as ready for reality as autonomous cars.

I just put 450km of highway/city driving on my QX30 before it kindly
asked me whether I would buy it a drink of oil. None of those
affordable electric cars get anywhere near there. Only Tesla does...
and it has a wait time as well as a very high price tag.


My Silverado gets over 500 on a tank except when I'm towing
my camper. Wonder how far a Tesla would pull that? :-)

I imagine that the Silverado has a fairly large tank to be able to do
that. Mine's about 50 litres if I remember correctly.

DaveFroble wrote:

there's essentially no maintenance on an electric vehicle, so no.

There is no such thing as a vehicle that doesn't need periodic maintenance.
Granted, with electric, no more oil changes, no more exhaust systems to replace,
and such. But there will be places with lube, and such. And components will
need service. You still running that 50 year old computer with no issues? Or
even 2-3 years.

For the most part, the auto industry has realized that people don't actually
do maintenance, and has been slowly engineering it out. Used to be you would
grease the bearings every few thousand miles, and they lasted forever if you
did (but didn't always last so long if you neglected to). Now, in the new era
you don't have to grease them, but you can expect a failure within 150,000
miles. We have traded maintenance for repairs, and for the average driver
that's probably a win.

Electric vehicles make it even easier to travel farther down this road,
because as you note there is no oil and no coolant. Stuff will still
fail, but it won't fail because people didn't keep up the schedule in
the owner's handbook.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

DaveFroble wrote:

I thought I read last year that Tesla was introducing a cheaper (relatively)
car, maybe in the $30K range. Yeah, still a lot, but, getting closer.

They are, but they're having trouble moving up to higher quantity production.
In addition, they are talking about introducing a full-sized pickup truck
(which is one place where the advantages of electric power are a big win and
the weight penalty is not so much an issue).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 01/07/2018 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
DaveFroble wrote:

I thought I read last year that Tesla was introducing a cheaper (relatively)
car, maybe in the $30K range. Yeah, still a lot, but, getting closer.

They are, but they're having trouble moving up to higher quantity production.
In addition, they are talking about introducing a full-sized pickup truck
(which is one place where the advantages of electric power are a big win and
the weight penalty is not so much an issue).
--scott

Try these on for big rigs.

Rene

On 01/07/2018 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
DaveFroble wrote:

I thought I read last year that Tesla was introducing a cheaper (relatively)
car, maybe in the $30K range. Yeah, still a lot, but, getting closer.

They are, but they're having trouble moving up to higher quantity production.
In addition, they are talking about introducing a full-sized pickup truck
(which is one place where the advantages of electric power are a big win and
the weight penalty is not so much an issue).
--scott


Check out there other endever.
https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-semi/


Rene

On 2018-01-07 15:48:38 +0000, Doomsdrzej said:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:30:01 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article
DaveFroble wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

My neighbor is a mechanic for a dealership. They send him to classes
for the latest updates and such. He's told some stories about the warnings
related to servicing electric cars. Most of the stories start with
something
to the effect of "..if you touch THIS you're dead.."
Seems there's the potential for a lot of dead shade-tree mechanics, to say
nothing of the risks to EMTs responding to crashes.
if you touch the wrong thing in a gas vehicle you could be dead too.

Having worked with both automobiles and electricity since my childhood
i think the electric has a much better chance of doing you in than the
average gasoline automobile.

there's essentially no maintenance on an electric vehicle, so no.

There is no such thing as a vehicle that doesn't need periodic maintenance.
Granted, with electric, no more oil changes, no more exhaust systems to
replace, nd such. But there will be places with lube, and such. And
components will need service.

Tyres will need replacing, brake pads will need replacing, air-con
systems will need cleaning, ...

The entire battery pack itself will need replacing from time to time,
depending on the longevity of electric cars, but I doubt they'll stay
on the road as long as cars used to and currently do. Cars (whether
indivdually owned or corporate owned as on-call for public use) will
become just another throw away item like a cellphone more or less is
now.

The battery pack, logically, will need replacing but it all depends on
the car. On something like a Prius, the batteries are never charged
any more than 25-30% which means that they can last forever. On a
purely electric car, I doubt that's the case and they should last no
more than three years. However, it seems that they've managed to get
more out of them somehow.

No battery can ever last forever (or even a relatively long time).
*ALL* batteies wear out and will need to be replaced, and that includes
the Prius and all other electric or hybrid vehicles, and of course the
batteries in normal petrol / diesel vehicles too.

"He pointed out to Torque News that Prius batteries
are warranted for 10 years or 150,000 miles in
California-compliance states and eight years or
100,000 miles in non-California compliant state.
In his experience, the batteries last about 12 to
15 years (the oldest Prius cars on the road are
now 20 years old)."


https://www.torquenews.com/1083/can-toyota-prius-battery-last-250000-miles

Feb 8, 2017



You still running that 50 year old computer with no issues? Or even 2-3 years.

I used a PowerMac G3 for nearly 20 years without major problems, until
a major fault somewhere in the IO system on the motherboard meant I was
forced to upgrade to a new Mac. Even the original hard drive was still
working ... and is still working, now in an external USB enclosure.

That's pretty impressive.

It died about March last year. I would still be using it now if it hadn't died.

It was still running Mac OS X 10.2 (released August 2002). I would
still probably have been using Mac OS 9, if it wasn't for an incomptent
ISP who wouldn't fix their servers! The only other issue was web
browsers becoming less compatible, so I was about to update it to Mac
OS X 10.3 (released in October 2003).

I will also have had my current car (and only car I've owned) for 20
years this year, but it was four years old when I bought it. It also
still runs fine with only normal wear and tear problems. It's just
passed 200,000kms, so is due for it's second cambelt replacement ... at
twice the price of the first one!




But I do know quite a few iMacs (both CRT and LCD models) from around
that same period that have either had multiple dead hard drives or
completely failed), possibly due to the all-in-one design and heat
issues over time.

I owned an iBook G3 back in 2002 and I can't imagine still working on
it today even though it likely would have managed to do pretty much
everything I would need for it to. Even maxed out at 640MB of RAM,
that thing was slow. Mac OS being the bloated behemoth that it is
didn't help. It ran Mac OS 9.2.2 beautifully though.

When my PowerMac G3 died, I did switch over to a iBook G4 for a couple
of months to finish off some work I was in the middle of, but that
laptop had already been having problems and quickly died under daily
use (it was a hand-me-down from another family member - the battery
never worked, one shift key was broken, the power socket kept coming
loose and needing re-soldering, etc.).

The PowerMac G3 had only 128MB RAM. I was using it pretty much every
day to do all sorts of things, including DTP with Adobe's apps. I can't
remember how much RAM the iBook G4 had - possibly just the standard
512MB.

I was also had only a dial-up internet connection with it and the
laptop, and both used with a 17" CRT display.

The forced upgrade to a new Mac Mini, with MacOS X 10.12 and all new
apps, as well as a broadband connection was a bit of a culture shock
.... although my job meant I have always been helping people with their
newer Macs anyway.

On 1/6/2018 11:53 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:35:50 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 1/5/2018 10:46 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:43:48 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-01-05 10:13, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:04:06 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote:
Might I say that was an awesome post, sir.

His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period.

Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at
its worst.

Idiot

Another thought-provoking and irrefutable post by Mainz's greatest
export, Peter the Klöwn.

A funny thing about your sort is you believe that putting down others
makes your point valid and that resonates in your little echo chambers
as some sort of truth.

Says the hypocrite who just defended someone calling another poster an
"idiot."

While there is wisdom in crowds...

... there is none in your posts.

*plonk*


Like the rest of the science deniers, go ahead and stick your head back
in the sand.

I'm not a science denier, but I do deny results which come from a
hand-picked set of scientists. If 1,000 scientists are asked about
climate and 100 of them say that humans are causing global warming, is
it honest to grab those 100 and then claim that 100% of scientists
believe in global warming?

I don't believe that it is and yet that's what happened.

Yes, but what can those 100 scientist do if they depend on supporting
polititians' goverment grants?

On 1/6/2018 11:53 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:35:50 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 1/5/2018 10:46 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:43:48 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-01-05 10:13, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:04:06 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote:
Might I say that was an awesome post, sir.

His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period.

Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at
its worst.

Idiot

Another thought-provoking and irrefutable post by Mainz's greatest
export, Peter the Klöwn.

A funny thing about your sort is you believe that putting down others
makes your point valid and that resonates in your little echo chambers
as some sort of truth.

Says the hypocrite who just defended someone calling another poster an
"idiot."

While there is wisdom in crowds...

... there is none in your posts.

*plonk*


Like the rest of the science deniers, go ahead and stick your head back
in the sand.

I'm not a science denier, but I do deny results which come from a
hand-picked set of scientists. If 1,000 scientists are asked about
climate and 100 of them say that humans are causing global warming, is
it honest to grab those 100 and then claim that 100% of scientists
believe in global warming?

I don't believe that it is and yet that's what happened.


Since the 100 you speak of are the climate scientists of the bunch, you
should pay most attention to them. Ignore the christian scientists and
other such.

In article
Bob F wrote:

On 1/6/2018 11:53 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:35:50 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 1/5/2018 10:46 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:43:48 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-01-05 10:13, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:04:06 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote:
Might I say that was an awesome post, sir.

His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period.

Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at
its worst.

Idiot

Another thought-provoking and irrefutable post by Mainz's greatest
export, Peter the Klöwn.

A funny thing about your sort is you believe that putting down others
makes your point valid and that resonates in your little echo chambers
as some sort of truth.

Says the hypocrite who just defended someone calling another poster an
"idiot."

While there is wisdom in crowds...

... there is none in your posts.

*plonk*


Like the rest of the science deniers, go ahead and stick your head back
in the sand.

I'm not a science denier, but I do deny results which come from a
hand-picked set of scientists. If 1,000 scientists are asked about
climate and 100 of them say that humans are causing global warming, is
it honest to grab those 100 and then claim that 100% of scientists
believe in global warming?

I don't believe that it is and yet that's what happened.


Since the 100 you speak of are the climate scientists of the bunch, you
should pay most attention to them. Ignore the christian scientists and
other such.

In article
cameo wrote:

On 1/6/2018 11:53 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:35:50 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 1/5/2018 10:46 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:43:48 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-01-05 10:13, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:04:06 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2018-01-04, chrisv wrote:
Might I say that was an awesome post, sir.

His post was sheer idiocy. CO2 is not a pollutant - period.

Human caused "climate change/global warming" is junk science at
its worst.

Idiot

Another thought-provoking and irrefutable post by Mainz's greatest
export, Peter the Klöwn.

A funny thing about your sort is you believe that putting down others
makes your point valid and that resonates in your little echo chambers
as some sort of truth.

Says the hypocrite who just defended someone calling another poster an
"idiot."

While there is wisdom in crowds...

... there is none in your posts.

*plonk*


Like the rest of the science deniers, go ahead and stick your head back
in the sand.

I'm not a science denier, but I do deny results which come from a
hand-picked set of scientists. If 1,000 scientists are asked about
climate and 100 of them say that humans are causing global warming, is
it honest to grab those 100 and then claim that 100% of scientists
believe in global warming?

I don't believe that it is and yet that's what happened.

Yes, but what can those 100 scientist do if they depend on supporting
polititians' goverment grants?

Doomsdrzej, AKA "Slimer", wrote:

The electic car HAS to look mostly bloated

Wrong, obviously.

An empty gas tank can quickly be filled at one of the many gas
stations around any country. The process itself takes about 2 to 5
minutes depending on how much gas you need and you're ready to go the
moment you've filled up. In the case of electric, even with fast
charging, you need a good 30 minutes to get to 80%.

Finally, a worthy point from "Slimer".

I'll add that electric vehicles work are not so good in places where
that are extreme temperatures. Heating and A/C take a lot of power.
Fine in California, not so fine in Calgary.

--
"Unfortunately, the open source nature of Linux tends to attract the
type of persona who somehow believes that all avenues are one-way
streets set up to benefit him (and only him) as the true & deserving
holy center of the universe." - lying asshole "-hh"

Scott Dorsey wrote:

These days it's not unusual at all for houses to have 200A service

200A service is *not* usual. 100A is usual.

and putting a 100A 240V outlet in
the garage for a charger does not require a major retrofit.

--
"And 'free' Linux programs aren't free either, because not only do you
still have to buy a computer to run it, that computer hardware then
also needs electricity to run, which also isn't free." - lying
asshole "-hh"

Doomsdrzej, AKA "Slimer", wrote:

nospam wrote:


the batteries are heated and shortly before leaving, you can preheat
the cabin via a smartphone app.

_How_ are they heated?

via a heater module on the batteries.

Which is fine, if you're plugged-in. Otherwise, you're sucking
battery power.

Pre-heating the cabin essentially means that you've turned on the car
remotely. However, this is only possible if the car starts which, of
course, often requires the batteries to be heated.

for a gas powered vehicle, the engine must be running.

not true for an electric vehicle.

Very interesting to know, thanks.

Well, duh. The heater's not working off from engine coolant...

--
"As opposed to the boys who pick their OS based on which one which has
free players for every possible CODEC .... because they're then not
limited on any of the Movies that they illegally download?" - lying
asshole "-hh"

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Hell, I remember when gasoline engines were effectively useless at -25C....
they got a lot better..

Just using synthetic oil helps a LOT.

--
"Microsoft is an obvious vendor because 400 distros makes it hard to
choose." - ccretin

Den 2018-01-08 kl. 14:05, skrev chrisv:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

These days it's not unusual at all for houses to have 200A service

200A service is *not* usual. 100A is usual.

and putting a 100A 240V outlet in
the garage for a charger does not require a major retrofit.


I'm not sure where you live, but over here (Sweden) either 16A/240V,
20A/240V or 32A/240V (if you have higher electricity needs) are the
usual values. The fixed "distribution" rates goes up fast for higher
service ratings.

Having an 100A outlet at home would need a major work to get installed.
I have never heard about that if you do not run a workshop in your
garage with some heavy machinery or something...