DRM To Be Used In Renault Electric Cars 231
mahiskali writes with this interesting news via the EFF's Deep Links "The new Renault Zoe comes with a 'feature' that absolutely nobody wants. Instead of selling consumers a complete car that they can use, repair, and upgrade as they see fit, Renault has opted to lock purchasers into a rental contract with a battery manufacturer and enforce that contract with digital rights management (DRM) restrictions that can remotely prevent the battery from charging at all. This coming on the heels of the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership IP Rights Chapter leak certainly makes you wonder how much of that device (car?) you really own. Perhaps Merriam-Webster can simply change the definition of ownership."
And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:3)
are a good reason why again?
Re:And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of good reasons. The real question is: Is closed source software safe? and the clear answer is "We have no idea... since it's closed. But it's probably not"
Re:And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:5, Informative)
Fuel Injection - the computer can monitor O2 and fuel precisely resulting in much better efficiency.
ABS - a computer senses when your car is skidding and rapidly pumps the brakes so you can still steer.
ESC/Traction control - when loss of steering or wheel spin is detected it will automatically start braking to enable steering and stop the skidding
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
Last time I checked, engine efficiency has improved significantly since electronic engine control systems were introduced.
Re: (Score:3)
[Citation needed]
Don't have a Citation handy. Will a Geo Metro do instead?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of cars like that on sale in Europe. In the US there just isn't enough demand for a car with a 1.0 liter 65 hp engine.
Re: (Score:2)
I was lead to believe that crumple zones (which British vehicles have been required to have since about the 1970s) improve safety for the occupants of the vehicle by making collisions last longer, therefore reducing the peak deceleration experienced i.e. the force, making the collision more survivable.
Mass-produced vehicle parts can be replaced relatively cheaply. Dead people can't be resurrected.
It's amazing what you can achieve when you stop restricting the flow of exhaust gasses to the point that the en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:2, Informative)
Smaller less powerful cars often reach 40 mpg highway, despite being significantly heavier than their 80's counterparts.
Re: (Score:3)
Cars are much heavier these days, for several reasons. This is tangential to the discussion, which is engine efficiency, which has absolutely improved.
Engine performance has increased with time, with fuel consumption going down. It's mostly heavier cars that account for the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted I didn't consider all aspects when I posted that... things could be much better now than they are, though. Why do the majority of hybrids on the market get shittier gas mileage than a 1990 Metro? Don't tell me it's because they're heavier; they're hybrids, the engine isn't even running most of the time!
For my 1991 Geo Metro convertible, it's the reformulated gas in California that drops a little over 20% of my gas mileage. If I drive it to Arizona or Utah, and fill up on "Winter gas", which is not reformulated, then my mileage goes back up over 60MPG. For cars manufactured since 1981, the reformulated gas does nothing but lower your gas mileage, which is a pretty useless thing, since cars manufactured in 1981 and later have oxygen sensors, and don't burn any cleaner with reformulated gas. We're basical
Re: (Score:2)
The engine is running most of the time. Hybrids excel in slow traffic, but the added weight (which is not negligible) cuts into efficiency on a highway because you end up having no way to charge the battery (little to no braking) but still have to carry the extra weight around.
Not to mention that a Metro is smaller and has less equipment than your average hybrid.
You have to compare similar cars, not vastly different cars.
Re:And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:4, Informative)
To many claims being made here, by you and others, with no qualifications whatsoever.
In '76 I bought a new car - my first one ever. 76 Chevy Nova, 6 cyl 3 speed. The damned thing was advertised as "fuel efficient". 18 mpg off the showroom floor, combined city and highway driving. The BEST I ever got with it on the highway was about 20 1/2 mpg. I did some research, did a couple of minor mods, and improved that fuel mileage about 3 mpg. After my efforts were completed, the BEST I ever got was 24 mpg on the highway - overall lifetime fuel mileage for the car was right at 20 mpg.
In recent years, I've owned several cars that got 29 to 31 mpg, and one that got 36 mpg consistently. I've not owned or driven anything that competes with my motorcycle, which got 53 mpg out of the showroom in 1983.
Fuel mileage in vehicles that are meant to get good mileage has gone up - but not nearly as much as it should have. Cars SHOULD be getting close to 50 mpg, and they would be, if customer demand actually demanded it.
The FACTS ARE, when Congress began mandating fuel economy goals, they screwed up by allowing trucks to be exempt. Enter the SUV. The American consumer demanded his power and luxury with lots of leg room and head room, so he paid a premium to have a luxury car mounted on a truck frame. That is why we STILL have personal vehicles running up and down the roads, getting 20 mpg and less.
It would be simple matter for Congress to revisit fuel economy, and remove the exemptions for "trucks", or to modify that exemption. Slap all non-commercial "truck" frames with a ten thousand dollar excise tax, and at the same time require their fuel economy to improve to a minimum of 25 mpg. We would see a hell of a lot of more fuel efficient cars being sold, and a lot less 15 to 20 mpg vehicles on the road.
The higher demand for fuel efficiency would at the same time encourage manufacturers to research even more economical drive trains.
The wife had a Toyota Camry that flirted with 40 mpg. Never quite got it, but it was really close sometimes. That is what we should ALL be driving, unless we have a genuine need for a larger, more powerful vehicle. In which case you pay the excise tax on it, and recoup the taxes in your business.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel.
That's the absolute opposite of the truth. Crumple zones don't extend into the passenger compartment. And you have no evidence they are less good than they were 20 years ago. They can be lighter because these days they can be designed and virtually tested on a computer. Which means the designers know much more about how they crumple, and can save on metal where it is not required.
Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer;
Bullshit. Cars are independently tested for safety, at various establishments around the world. And they have far more genuine safety features as standard than they used to. Such as for example side impact bars.
selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.
You will come to far more injury and more likely die in a car that does not crumple. As will pedestrians you may hit. You are just plain wrong in your belief that a more solid car is a safer car. It is not. It's the difference between a stuntman jumping off a roof onto a pile of cardboard boxes, or jumping off and hitting a pile of bricks.
Watch. Learn. Admit you made your point poorly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There was a generation of cars that 'burned lean' (very late 80s early 90s). They can't do it anymore as burning lean produces unacceptable levels of NOX.
But it's not a safety margin issue, it's an emissions issue. Less NOX, more CO2. All fuel injected, Oxygen sensor cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Because sensors degrade over time and most people are morons who won't follow a maintenance schedule, an extra margin of "safety" is added, running the engine richer than necessary, to prevent this issu
Re: (Score:2)
So buy a late 80s car. They still exist.
But you are simply wrong on the history. They existed, then they were banned due to emissions issues. They make too much NOX with brand new sensors etc.
Engines produce too much NOX way before they melt their pistons. Air cooled bugs also produce too much NOX because they burn hot but they were typically slightly rich (like all well tuned, carburated engines).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel injection is great. The latter two are just so much molly-coddling of people who can't be bothered to learn how to drive a car. Taking control of the vehicle away from the driver is making worse and worse drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
NONE of which require fucking DRM...
Re:And all these computer parts in cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
I translated the original article and they don't seem to mention whether it is a deadman/watchdog kind of kill switch that needs to periodically hear from Renault that it is OK to continue to operate, or if it is a specific signal to stop operating that is only issued when that situation is deemed necessary.
If it is a "one-time" signal, then that is possibly open to spoofing/hacking and potentially very disrupting for legitimate owners in good standing if someone figures out how to remotely shut them down. That would be quite the coup for hackers if they could stop the entire fleet.
If it is a deadman kind of thing, one hopes that the company would continue to support sending that signal for as long as even a single car was still on the road and the owner was in good standing.
Either way, I don't think I would buy one of these.
Re: (Score:2)
And if Renault goes out of business?
Impossible! And if that should happen anyway the tax payers of all of the Union Européenne will come to ze rescue.
Renault won't go out of business. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking from experience, back in 1983 Renault ceased operations in Mexico (now it's back) and a lot of owners were stranded with no parts, warranty or service.
I would not buy a Renault even if it was the most awesome car available and the cheapest; once burned, twice shy.
Yes, the French government will bail them out in France, but not everywhere else... Caveat emptor.
Re: (Score:2)
Computers in cars are good. Transceivers in cars are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant wireless transceivers.
Defensive move (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps this has something to do with preventing people from using the battery longer than is safe. Because we know that when things catch fire or stop working the immediate remedy is to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people. Do you propose to embed DRM on it? There is no need for remote capabilities for that, just add a timer and disable it after their secure time of life. The problem with this case is not only the remote capabilities, but that they don't sell you a battery, they rent it to you, not a problem they give you an option to buy one or others are able to provide the same rental service and by definition of DRM I am pretty sure this
Re:Defensive move - Informative update. (Score:5, Insightful)
...I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people....
The 'expired' date on medicines (and food) does NOT give a time after which they are unsafe to use.
Please concentrate, because this is slightly non-intuitive. The manufactures lobbied, not to provide this, but to provide a time UP TO WHICH it had been tested to be safe.
Now, those two times may be very similar for cases where an item spoils quickly - a cake or bread, for instance. But in many cases medicines (or food) can last essentially unchanged for many decades. In those cases a manufacturer will NOT test for several decades and try to find the maximum shelf life, but will test for, say, 5 years. That's a reasonable length of time, and he will be very happy if after 5 years a warehouse has to throw away perfectly good items which would have lasted another 15 years, and buy some new produce from him again.
If you are using something with an outdated shelf-life, consider the chemistry. For instance, a sealed jar of sodium bicarbonate isn't going to go 'off' even if it's 100 years old...
Re:Defensive move - Informative update. (Score:4, Funny)
The 'expired' date on medicines (and food) does NOT give a time after which they are unsafe to use.
True story: I had a box of fungicide in my shed, and my wife wanted to throw it out because it was expired. I finally convinced her that it was unlikely that fungicide would rot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'expired' date on medicines (and food) does NOT give a time after which they are unsafe to use.
Please concentrate, because this is slightly non-intuitive. The manufactures lobbied, not to provide this, but to provide a time UP TO WHICH it had been tested to be safe.
Now, those two times may be very similar for cases where an item spoils quickly - a cake or bread, for instance. But in many cases medicines (or food) can last essentially unchanged for many decades. In those cases a manufacturer will NOT test for several decades and try to find the maximum shelf life, but will test for, say, 5 years. That's a reasonable length of time, and he will be very happy if after 5 years a warehouse has to throw away perfectly good items which would have lasted another 15 years, and buy some new produce from him again.
If you are using something with an outdated shelf-life, consider the chemistry. For instance, a sealed jar of sodium bicarbonate isn't going to go 'off' even if it's 100 years old...
The US military has a program to test how long medicine is still effective after expiration. Since they typically stockpile significant amounts, it is expensive to throw out perfectly good, but past date, medicine. Not only do they need to buy more but they need to then ship it to warehouses around the work.
Not surprisingly, some of it from a PR perspective, i.e.e "We're giving our troops outdated medicine;" but also because it represents a revenue loss for suppliers. If ^H^H When the data leaks to the gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying my vitamins may not be less effective if they are past their expiry date?
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure that as soon as it becomes practical, somebody will propose that, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone who developed smart medicine packaging. It basically integrates temperature over time and throws a red light when the medicine is expired.
Not exactly DRM. But close. It could burst a cell full of ruining agent when it expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries don't expire according to the calendar. They expire according to how they are used.
Re: (Score:2)
then add the logic for that, no need to be remote triggered
Re:Defensive move (Score:5, Informative)
I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people. Do you propose to embed DRM on it? There is no need for remote capabilities for that, just add a timer and disable it after their secure time of life. The problem with this case is not only the remote capabilities, but that they don't sell you a battery, they rent it to you, not a problem they give you an option to buy one or others are able to provide the same rental service and by definition of DRM I am pretty sure this will be something like "only Renault can provide that service"
There is not a single drug that has been proven to become unsafe after it's passed the expiration date - or any other date, for that matter. After expiration a drug may become less effective, i.e. you may not be getting the full dose as labeled, but the medicine isn't going to suddenly start to have different pharmacological effects, dangerous or otherwise, just because of the passage of time. There was at one time a single known case where a drug was thought to possibly degrade into a potentially harmful substance, but it was subsequently proven that the drug in question, tetracycline, remains safe even after expiration, and in any event tetracycline is only sold for veterinary use these days. So no, you won't kill yourself or anybody with expired meds, that's basically an urban myth, although big pharma would no doubt love for everybody to continue to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insight, but in my defence, giving someone an expired drug is still dangerous if that people need it to live, don't you think? probably the drug is ineffective or is not strong enough for the people required dosage. I assure you that if someone start giving a lot of people expired drugs, he or she will go to jail, it is because it is dangerous, people can get harmed receiving something ineffective
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No Problem. (Score:5, Funny)
2. (obsc./archaic) N. "Possessing the right of use or disposition of an object as one sees fit."
Re:No Problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
People who realize that the main drag on buying electric cars (in countries with short commutes) is the lack of resale value because of battery life worries.
Under Renault's scheme, you don't own the battery, just the frame, and you can even do road trips by swapping batteries along the way without worries about getting yours back (intact or damaged). Because you don't own it and you can just go get a new one anytime, and so does the guy who'd like to spend 10k on your used car but is worried about having to buy a 7k battery a month later.
The DRM part probably comes from the fact that if you don't pay your lease, Europeans don't have the wild US repo guys. It takes a while to get the battery you don't own out of the car you do own via the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Under Renault's scheme, you don't own the battery, just the frame
The worst of both worlds! In 5 years, instead of a car that's hard to sell because potential buyers don't know the condition of the battery, you'll have a car that's impossible to drive or sell because the battery was returned to Renault after the lease ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the lease end and the battery be returned? That's an odd idea. You want to stop milking people, go back to the XXth century ! :-)
The only way they could avoid being sued if they stopped providing the battery lease/support program would be to just give away the batteries (now useless for them, a nice tax writeoff).
Re: (Score:2)
How would it be a lease if they *didn't* take the battery back when you stopped paying? Either you buy it outright, or keep paying installments on it forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Cars as a sevice. Because putting just your data at the could isn't enough.
Seriously (Score:2)
Look how long the much ballyhooed Bluray DRM took to get cracked.
Not to mention I wasn't aware Renault still made cars.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you will be subject to being sued for breaking the DRM. In fact, you probably sign something that says you won't do that, and if you do you consent to be sued.
You really don't think they have a bunch of lawyers making sure they've got your options limited, your nuts in a vice, and their hand on your wallet?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'll use this as a reason to never, ever, ever buy a Renault car, ever.
I don't just mean this car. I mean any car of theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
But, honestly, would you have without this?
Boycotting a company you wouldn't have bought products from anyway is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess that it's coming soon to a Nissan near you, and lots of people buy Nissans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They sell plenty of cars in America too.
Under the banner, Nissan/Infiniti.
Not entirely new (Score:5, Interesting)
This is obnoxious but not entirely new. My 2005 volvo has a 'feature' where the power steering pump can only be changed by volvo as the software 'needs an update' before the car will start again. Can't even have another garage do it, you need the volvo computers.
I guess it is just a way to ensure the dealership garages stay in business.
Re:Not entirely new (Score:5, Informative)
First off, that's what you get for buying a Volvo.
Second, you can reset the computer yourself. It's not that hard. Use the interwebs and all will be revealed. I had to deal with that mess on a friends 2007.
Now if you replace the engine or transmission... yea, you need to get some software off the piratebay to program the computer correctly. Done that to. That sort of crap should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, apparently they changed something in the wiring so it isn't a computer reset, it is actually new software. I'm just not quite comfortable torrenting car software. (not that I didn't consider it)
Re: (Score:2)
And this kind of BS is why I've just about decided never to buy a car built in this millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
This is obnoxious but not entirely new. My 2005 volvo has a 'feature' where the power steering pump can only be changed by volvo as the software 'needs an update' before the car will start again. Can't even have another garage do it, you need the volvo computers.
I guess it is just a way to ensure the dealership garages stay in business.
BMW does this as well. Cost of new battery:$145 Cost of putting it in and programming car for new battery: $400 Buying aftermarket programing kit for $180 and DIY: Priceless (sort of)
Re: (Score:2)
This happened to Mack trucks after Volvo bought out Renault Trucks who happened to have a controlling interest in Mack. Volvo basically told Mack they were now to use Volvo engines (rebranded of course) Mack shops were all forced to buy costly Volvo computer diagnostic equipment. Mack used to supply dealerships with the necessary software and hardware for the original Mack engines (also shared with Renault).
An employee at a Mack dealership told me the cost was $5,000 per system with equally costly yearly ma
So... (Score:3)
Might not be as evil as it sounds (Score:5, Informative)
What I heard is that Renault realized that the cost of the battery is one of the main problems in electric car adoption, both because it is expensive and because it is unclear how its value will depreciate over time. Therefore, instead of letting people buy the car with the battery, they sell the car much cheaper without a battery and the battery can be leased. At least here it is clear the battery is not sold, unlike many products with DRM.
I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.
Of course some people don't like the idea of any kind of kill switch existing at all, which I can understand. It is a sign of distrust and it is also a potential mode of failure (both technical and administrative). But making the battery a rental was done for a good reason here, not just out of corporate greed or control freaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.
Yeah... the same thing went through my head when I read the headline. They're probably selling the car and renting the battery, and being able to brick the battery is a lot easier than trying to get into the "deadbeat battery lessee repo business". And your comment about being able to brick stolen batteries or cars has parallels to things like the new "Activation Lock" in iPhones. Still, I won't be buying one of these things...
Re: (Score:2)
If there’s a leasing company prepared to offer a lease on the battery, you can be absolutely assured that either the above is untrue (IE they have a perfectly clear understanding of how it will depreciate) or else the lease cost is inflated such that that they’re making the purchase cost plus a tidy profit over a conservatively short estimated lifetime of the battery. If you’re required to continue making lease payments beyond t
Re: (Score:3)
But because that was a problem potentially solvable through technology, they decided to replace it with a much bigger problem that does not depend on insufficiently advanced technology to remain unsolvable. It's an utterly brilliant move that should definitely help make all electric cars seem s
There will be US unions removing this (Score:2)
On one hand, I can't disagree that encryption in automotive control systems is very important.... critical even. On the other hand, to potentially make cars more expensive to adjust, repair or update is an attack on the consumer and should not be tolerated. Copyright is abused far too often as the real cause and intent would not be allowed by most legislators.
GM does it better (Score:2)
The Chevy Volt comes with a 150,000 mile, 10 year warranty on the battery. GM started with 100,000 miles with the original Volt, 8 years, but then upgraded the battery technology in later models.
So this is not a technology problem.
This is nothing new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My 1981 Pontiac had some of both.
Re: (Score:2)
BMW uses secret decoder ring bolts. You used to have to get the tools off the tool truck for many dollars but now they are relatively common.
Re: (Score:2)
There’s definitely something new here, at least under US law. If the manufacture uses unique screw heads, the market can produce a cheap replacement tool, and you’re good. See Apple & pentalobe screws on iPhones.
Assuming this is in fact interpreted as DRM (and we’re not just throwing that word around for the knee-jerk) and thus covered by DMCA, it would be illegal, not merely inconvenient for you to attempt to repair the problem if the battery were deactivated. Even if it’s no
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! Car analogies will make sense (Score:2)
Finally! Car analogies will make sense to Joe-Public because they will have lived through them.
If it's rented, not owned (Score:3)
Problem Solved (Score:2)
DRM not possible in my ride (Score:2)
I own a 1980 Triumph TR-8. No ABS, anti-lock, traction control, air bags, EFI (it's carbureted), bluetooth, or GPS; therefore, no computers. The most modern thing in it is the stereo, a Clarion from 1993. It's even got manual door locks and windows. Analog clock. Mechanical speedo, tach and odometer.
I'd like to see them try to apply DRM to it.
Sometimes, being a partial Luddite can be a good thing.
Oh, yeah, it's a real kick to drive....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that buying a new car with DRM is a choice. Don't want DRM? Don't buy new; there are plenty of viable alternatives out there. Or, buy new from a manufacturer that hasn't gone the DRM route. If enough people make those choices, it starts to hit the manufacturers where it counts the most, in the profit/loss statements. Doesn't always work, but it works often enough.
Car Museum (20 Years from now) (Score:2)
Father: See that, son! That's a picture of Renault.
Son: Renault? Who were they?
Father: Who? Renault?
Son: Yeah.
Father: It was a car company. They went out of business screwing their customers over.
pirating passengers (Score:2)
you don't own the battery (Score:2)
You buy the car, lease the battery. Why the snark about changing the definition of ownership?
If you don't like the lease the battery arrangement, get a different car. Renault even has other EVs to offer.
It's pretty absurd to say that this changes the definition of ownership when the part affect is a part you didn't actually buy.
Remember to adjust the price. (Score:2)
Now, Renault, look at your spreadsheet after you've adjus
Battery Swap (Score:2)
How did everyone miss this?
The ZOE has a swappable battery. There are or will be stations where one can drive up and swap the discharged battery for a different charged battery. This is why the battery is leased and not sold. The infrastructure to do this swapping and the spare batteries that must be kept at the swap stations need to be paid for somehow. The lease is how it is paid for.
Lets look at a couple of scenarios;
1. Purchase battery
Worst case scenario. A user charges the battery until it degrades to
Re: (Score:2)
Basically giving them a choke-hold on you regardless of you being wrongly treated and them violating agreements.
Business model (Score:2)
The Zoe is an electric only car that is marketed at European "company lease" users. Actual drivers don't "own" the cars, nor do their employers. To keep costs nice and predictable, Renault had to do this. Even the few private "owners" of these cars got scared of battery replacement costs of several hybrids we've had for the last ten years or so in Europe, but lease companies have started demanding warranties for the full duration from manufacturers to even consider the cars in their programs.
The fact that
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (Score:2)
Will that law need to be updated to stop BS like this from locking out 3rd party shops from working on cars or even the do it your self people?
Well, thanks for making it easier for me to choose (Score:2)
Thanks Renault for making it easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're simply returning to the feudal roots of modern civilization. Feudalism never really died anyway. It was just cleverly masked with the illusion of ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
And given that, does it really make sense to toil? From what I've seen around here, more and more people are moving from "bust your ass to make as much as possible" to "put in the minimum effort needed to survive, even if you could easily make more, because it just isn't worth it". Good for them, but I doubt modern economies can survive the end of consumerism and the resulting slow or nonexistent growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on some of my friends who have bought hybrids & electrics, “Cause they’re, like green and stuff!” you would think wrong... I did more research buying my $16k Yaris than they did buying their $30k Prius or $35k Leaf.
Re:Simple, Don't Buy Them (Score:5, Insightful)
And If you don't want a cell phone with GPS, buy one that doesn't have it.
Welcome to the small picture.