Jeep Superbowl Commercial: The Jeep 4xe "Electric Boogie"

[BXFXJeep]

80% of the time there is no cell signal.

A cell signal is not required for charging.

All that's needed are solar panels and storage batteries, is it practical? That's a different story, but then again how many of cars in America go to remote areas?

Sponsored

 

[Albertaktm]

A cell signal is not required for charging.

All that's needed are solar panels and storage batteries, is it practical? That's a different story, but then again how many of cars in America go to remote areas?

Well yeah. Of course you don’t need cell coverage to charge. Well, it’s a Jeep forum. Jeeps go to remote areas. I personally am glad most cars in NORTH America do not go to remote areas.

 

[Jamrock]

The picture of the charging station up on the mountains says it all about electric vehicles. I take several trips a year through the Rocky Mountain fire roads and ocean beaches in BC, Washington, Oregon California and Idaho. NONE of there would be possible in an Electric vehicle. Hell, 80% of the time there is no cell signal. Thats when you know you are in the right place. Until they have charging stations at the tree line.

Your point is well taken.

I suspect, however, that we are in the early days of this technology. The early cell phones were basic devices. In many places there were not enough cell towers to support them.

I am expecting electrical vehicles and the associated infrastructure to improve significantly over time. If the process of development follows the pattern of cell phones, computers, etc. there is hope for the future.

I remember seeing an interview with Bill Gates. He spoke about the day he told his parents he was leaving Harvard to start Microsoft. His mother asked him, "Why would anyone need a computer?"

 

[Albertaktm]

Your point is well taken.

I suspect, however, that we are in the early days of this technology. The early cell phones were basic devices. In many places there were not enough cell towers to support them.

I am expecting electrical vehicles and the associated infrastructure to improve significantly over time. If the process of development follows the pattern of cell phones, computers, etc. there is hope for the future.

I remember seeing an interview with Bill Gates. He spoke about the day he told his parents he was leaving Harvard to start Microsoft. His mother asked him, "Why would anyone need a computer?"

Another Gates quote. Why would anyone need more than 512k of memory in their computer! My main point is massive lack of charging stations. I’m not talking major CENTER’s. I could care less about cities. I’m talking on the little 2 lane highway Small 1200 population towns. The cost to put charging stations in these areas is huge. Then there is the grid hit. The only way electric will take over is if the number of charging stations equals the current number and locations of gas stations.

 

[Jamrock]

The early cell phones were big devices. The early computers were big devices. All this changed as the technology advanced.

The current batteries are big devices.

Technological development is very often driven by profit. If electronic vehicles prove to be profitable enough, companies will invest more research and development dollars in them.

Like cell phones and computers, this has nothing to do with government mandates or the cries of liberal tree huggers. It is all about providing profits to shareholders.

 

[BXFXJeep]

the cost is huge because of the government subsidies scheme, which is more about dumping tax dollars into their friends pockets.

 

[Rock Hopper]

All of this reminds me of just how much I miss the good old days...

 

[Ratbert]

Another Gates quote. Why would anyone need more than 512k of memory in their computer!

It was 640K, not 512K. He claims that he never said it, but those of us that were developing software in those days are well aware of all of the pains that we went through to deal with the 640K limit.

 

[Albertaktm]

It was 640K, not 512K. He claims that he never said it, but those of us that were developing software in those days are well aware of all of the pains that we went through to deal with the 640K limit.

640k would make more sense. I am still learning DOS 3.3 commands!

 

[Ratbert]

640k would make more sense. I am still learning DOS 3.3 commands!

Learning them now? That's unexpected since there are much better alternatives. Hell, there were better DOS-based alternatives back when it was active.

 

[Bmeister]

Another Gates quote. Why would anyone need more than 512k of memory in their computer!...

Yes, that's why Microsoft is not very visionary. Back in the day in IT (and at Microsoft), systems enginerds would arrogantly ask why any user needs a GUI when all they have to do is memorize a few thousand commands, the syntax, and type what they want to do on a remote dumb terminal.

 

[Ratbert]

Yes, that's why Microsoft is not very visionary. Back in the day in IT (and at Microsoft), systems enginerds would arrogantly ask why any user needs a GUI when all they have to do is memorize a few thousand commands, the syntax, and type what they want to do on a remote dumb terminal.

You might be confused if you think that Microsoft was pushing remote dumb terminals in the early days.

 

[Bmeister]

You might be confused if you think that Microsoft was pushing remote dumb terminals in the early days.

To clarify, the Microsoft ref was to their distaste for anything GUI. Many programmers of all stripes, though, felt that computing should be centralized via networked dumb terminals. This, even as some of them worked on DOS for stand-alone 8088 and then x86 systems as MS bought DOS (QDOS if I recall) and tweaked it to become MS-DOS.

 

[Ratbert]

To clarify, the Microsoft ref was to their distaste for anything GUI. Many programmers of all stripes, though, felt that computing should be centralized via networked dumb terminals. This, even as some of them worked on DOS for stand-alone 8088 and then x86 systems as MS bought DOS (QDOS if I recall) and tweaked it to become MS-DOS.

I was just pointing out that there were several operating systems that were built around dumb terminals connecting to them. That was not what Microsoft did with DOS. There were 3270 emulators and telnet for DOS, but those weren't the focus. The focus was your own standalone single-user machine.

For a long time Windows was just another program launched from the DOS command line. Yeah, it took them a while to catch on that the world was moving towards GUI-based interfaces.

 

[Bmeister]

I was just pointing out that there were several operating systems that were built around dumb terminals connecting to them...

Yep...I was part of that mainframe/dumb-terminal subculture, LOL. I didn't mean to allude Microsoft worked with mainframes or centralized systems; they were another, different subculture at that time in Seattle. And, I'm not saying I look or looked anything like Dilbert although I might make myself sound that way. (I'm old enough to remember the IBM 3090)

Sponsored