Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk Will Usher In the Era of Electric Cars

pigrabbitbear writes "There's a reason why Elon Musk is being called the next Steve Jobs. Like Jobs, he's a visionary, a super successful serial entrepreneur, having made his initial fortune with a company he sold to Compaq before starting Paypal. Like Jobs, he saved his beloved baby Tesla Motors from the brink of oblivion. Like Jobs, [he has] a knack for paradigm-shifting industry disruption. Which means he's also demanding. 'Like Jobs, Elon does not tolerate C or D players,' SpaceX board member and early Tesla investor Steve Jurvetson told BusinessWeek. But while Jobs was slinging multi-colored music players and touchable smartphones, Musk is building rocket ships and electric-powered supercars. It's why his friends describe him as not just Steve Jobs but also John D. Rockefeller and Howard Hughes all wrapped in one. His friend Jon Favreau used Musk as the real-life inspiration for the big screen version of Tony Stark. Elon Musk is a badass."

336 comments

  1. If somebody compared me... by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

    1. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ditto for Jobs

    2. Re:If somebody compared me... by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

      You do realize that the comparison refers to things like "influence on the world"/success and not on personal qualities?
      From what I understand, Steve Jobs was also not the nicest person you ever met - but that's not really relevant, unless Elon Musk's personality is being compared.

    3. Re:If somebody compared me... by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess if I had to pick the comparisons (Jobs Rockefeller, Hughes, or Stark)... I pick Stark.

      Hughes wouldn't be that bad if the guy didn't have that "saving my pee" habit.

    4. Re:If somebody compared me... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The more you read about the classic US families- "influence on the world"/success is very personal - and the cash follows in to pet projects, people, ideas, private and tax free foundations that span generations.
      From "Competition is a sin!" to nets catching workers as they drop .... personal qualities are all you have.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess if I had to pick the comparisons (Jobs Rockefeller, Hughes, or Stark)... I pick Stark.

      So the first word used to describe your legacy would be "fictional", then?

    6. Re:If somebody compared me... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      If someone compared me to that dick Jobs, I'd punch them in the face. And then in the nads.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      Also, John Favreu's Tony Stark is actually modeled from Elon.

      http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/08/robert-downey-jr-modeled-his-portrayal-of-tony-stark-after-elon-musk-one-of-the-founders-of-zip2-paypal-tesla-motors-and-spacex/

    8. Re:If somebody compared me... by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If somebody compared me to an egomaniacal, ethics-free, self-righteous jerk whose only real talent was as a pitchman, I'd be really offended. "Visionary" my ass.

    9. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

      I know, what a horrible guy. Especially the way he donated over half a billion dollars (about 8 billion in today's money) to different colleges, universities, and medical institutions. I forget, how much his own personal wealth did Steve Jobs donate toward philanthropic efforts? Not 8 billion, that's for sure...

    10. Re:If somebody compared me... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Can we, please, stop praising rich slimebags for their habit of throwing money into the crowd?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:If somebody compared me... by aurispector · · Score: 2

      It's sad how people confuse fantasy with reality, isn't it?

      I get tired of hearing people drool over how great guys like Jobs and Musk are supposed to be. The ones who make the world go around are the entrepreneurs who run the small businesses that comprise the bulk of the economy.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    12. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd run them down with me Tesla Roaster before shooting their bloody remains into space lashed to the nose cone of a Falcon.

      There, Mr. Musk. Fixed it for ya! No need to thank me. Just let me have the first ride when you make a rocket everyone can afford.

    13. Re:If somebody compared me... by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

      The farmer bought the Standard product with the reasonable expectation that the oil lamp in his parlor would not explode when his wife when his wife put a match to the wick --- a very real possibility in the early wildcat days of the petroleum industry.

      He bought the Standard product because it was sold unadulterated in honest weights and measures.

      He bought the Standard product because it was cheap.

      The retail price of kerosene down 50% in less then ten years .

      When the Standard Oil trust was broken, customers remained loyal to the Standard's regional operating companies, each one very big, very strong and technically sophisticated competitors in their own right.

    14. Re:If somebody compared me... by RabidTimmy · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would just add validity to their comparison.

    15. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... too big to fail...

    16. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Without those "rich slimebags" throwing their money into educational and public enrichment programs there would be a lot more poor and disadvantaged people around. And keep in mind, while the super-rich of the early 1900s to the 1970s were donating large amounts of their wealth, they were also paying between 50% and 94% income tax as well (not 35%, not including loopholes, like today)...

    17. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

      And you shooting somebody because you were COMPARED to Rockefeller should somehow convince us that you are better than Rockefeller?

    18. Re:If somebody compared me... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ones who make the world go around are the entrepreneurs who run the small businesses that comprise the bulk of the economy.

      That's true, those people do make the world go around. But people like Jobs, Musk, Gates, etc are the people who make the world move forward.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:If somebody compared me... by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Small businesses no longer make up the majority of the economy. In boom times, they do very well. But during periods when expansion capital is hard to come by and sales are weak, they are much less competitive against larger companies who have significant cash/resources to fall back on. We've been in such a bad growth situation for small businesses for several years now, and there's no sign of it improving in the near future either.

    20. Re:If somebody compared me... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the iOS walled garden, proprietary connectors, etc, Jobs did at least as much to more the world backward.

    21. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is "influence on the world" a good or bad thing?

    22. Re:If somebody compared me... by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      You're close. Standard Oil had a peak market share of over 80%. When it was broken up, it's market share was only 25%. This is because new entrants came into the market with very clever ways to save money and thus took their market share. There is no such thing as a monopoly, other than the ones that the government creates.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    23. Re:If somebody compared me... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    24. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who'd they get all that money off?

    25. Re:If somebody compared me... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Without those "rich slimebags" throwing their money into educational and public enrichment programs there would be a lot more poor and disadvantaged people around.

      And without rich people throwing money into the crowd, there would be more people without few coins (and much less with intact eyes and non-broken hands).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    26. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, Steve Jobs was also not the nicest person you ever met...

      If he wanted something from you...

    27. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too right. What an insult to poor elon, the man is a true genius (not just tells everyone he is) in a number of fields, and he isn't building a music player then obsessing on bouncy scroll, he is building electric cars and spaceships. He would be closer to gates than jobs due to his technical experience and business stratergy.

    28. Re:If somebody compared me... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Interestingly i heard it's the other way around, apparently the iron man movie writers got the inspiration of stark from Elon.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    29. Re:If somebody compared me... by Dr+Max · · Score: 2

      The same number of positive accomplishments as Steve jobs then.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    30. Re:If somebody compared me... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      That's a very odd thing to say. The rich people are the ones who pay most of the taxes

      http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf

      The top 25% pay 72.8% of total income tax. The top 10% pay 55.8%. The top 1% pay 24.8. You'd need a serious austerity program to compensate for even the top 1% leaving.

      They create most of the jobs too - a rich self employed person is another way of describing a small business. Jobs was a dick but it's not as if Apple would have been anywhere near as profitable or have employed as many people without him. Now you can say that some people are motivated by things other than money. Well no doubt, but what about the ones whose motivation is purely monetary. If they all left or had their property expropriated there's no real sign that the poor would get richer. In fact if you look at the USSR, Belarus, PRC etc the odds are that the poor would get poorer.

      Now if you look at Sweden for example - which is really an example of a low inequality society done well - you find that

      http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distribution-in-us-and-sweden.html

      Up until around the 45th percentile, Sweden does better than the U.S. After this the U.S opens up a substantial advantage. It is clearly better to be poor in Sweden compared to the U.S, and obviously to be rich in America compared to Sweden.

      What matters most is that this graph illustrates that it is better to be middle class in America. The 60% in the middle earn 20% more in the U.S than they do in Sweden, even taking government purchases crudely into account. It is a myth that only a few at the top do better in the American system compared to even arguably the most successful of the European welfare states.

      I.e. the poorest 45% would be better off in a Swedish style system. Everyone else would be better off in the US. The problem is that the job creators are, by definition, in the top 55%. So you'll find that successful companies - Apple, Google, Microsoft etc - are much more likely to be started in the US than in Sweden. In the long run that means that the number of coins to go round will be more in a laissez faire society than in one where the government seeks to reduce inequality.

      If you look here at GDP per capita PPP the US does better than Sweden and has done since the 1960's

      http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    31. Re:If somebody compared me... by garaged · · Score: 1

      That is neglecting the taxes enterprises should be paying, that is the origin of the economic problem pretty much everywhere in the world

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    32. Re:If somebody compared me... by Glock27 · · Score: 2

      There is more than one side to the "iOS walled garden"...Android has had far more security issues than iOS. There are things I don't like about Apple's policies, but they do seem to be slowly getting better.

      As to "proprietary connectors"...really? Apple has driven adoption of many of its connectors (some built in collaboration with others) - USB, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt for instance. I wouldn't be surprised to see Lightning become a standard.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    33. Re:If somebody compared me... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I hope that you received a few "Insightful" mods before you hit +5 Funny.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    34. Re:If somebody compared me... by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The ones who make the world go around are the entrepreneurs who run the small businesses that comprise the bulk of the economy.

      That's true, those people do make the world go around. But people like Jobs, Musk, Gates, etc are the people who make the world move forward.

      Wow, you've certainly swallowed the capitalist kool aid good and proper.

      If Jobs was that much of a fucking genius he'd have single-handedly invented the iPhone and mobile internet in the 1960s wouldn't he? What's that? He had to depend on incremental progress in many fields by countless different people, organisations and companies? Oh no, that doesn't fit with the "solitary genius writing history" storyline that the rest of us abandoned in the Nineteenthy Century.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:If somebody compared me... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If somebody compared me to that slimebag Rockefeller, I'd shoot them.

      I know, what a horrible guy. Especially the way he donated over half a billion dollars (about 8 billion in today's money) to different colleges, universities, and medical institutions. I forget, how much his own personal wealth did Steve Jobs donate toward philanthropic efforts? Not 8 billion, that's for sure...

      If the US had had a proper tax system it would have got more than that out of him in taxes which could have been spent according to need rather than his own personal wishes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:If somebody compared me... by gman003 · · Score: 2

      And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Doing a few good things doesn't mean he didn't do a whole lot more bad ones.

    37. Re:If somebody compared me... by operagost · · Score: 0

      So what you're trying to say is... Jobs didn't build that?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    38. Re:If somebody compared me... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes. Instead, we should praise the common wage slave for only occasionally stealing from the office supplies, sneaking out of work early only once a week, and occasionally tossing his pocket change in the Salvation Army kettle on the way out of the supermarket.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:If somebody compared me... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Karl. But who determines need?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:If somebody compared me... by Karna99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah or hating Jews.

    41. Re:If somebody compared me... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yup. And with the SMB segment shrinking, so does the middle class. What's left is now the lower-middle class to the poor with the rich getting richer. Divide and conquer has proven to be a very effective strategy the world over.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    42. Re:If somebody compared me... by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      There is nothing wrong with an iOS Walled Garden, as long as there are other options out there which provide the ability to break out of the garden.

      Let's be honest, if the garden is well guarded, has a lot of apps, and is easy to use, it is plenty good enough for you if all you want to do is use your smartphone and use a few apps. That sort of concept is what pushes smartphones forward because you don't have to deal with any jagged edges while your general public becomes accustomed to your device and what it can do.

      Once the general public is accustomed to those things, many start realizing that other stuff is out there and then the Walled Garden is not enough for them. That is where a more open environment will shine.

      AOL had a walled garden that helped introduce millions to the possibilities of the internet. That walled garden was far from open, and it eventually bit the dust, but what we got was much, much better, because there were those millions who now knew why it was useful to have a wider Internet. Would we have gotten as far without the closed ecosystems? It's tempting to say it might have happened anyway, but I'm not so sure.

      The only problem I have with Steve Jobs is the fact that Apple liked to sue people for stupid shit. That's the real problem. If they try to keep everyone in the garden, they will only stunt the growth of the ecosystem. All I can say to that is that they will eventually lose that battle, one way or another. iOS probably has years, even decades ahead of it, but I think it's greatest triumphs are already behind it. And I think even Steve Jobs would realize that, even while he would be working to delay the inevitable to give him time to find something else to make.

    43. Re:If somebody compared me... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have no fear. History will moderate the story of Steve Jobs out. He was an interesting person who, in many ways, did promote the way our world works. Eventually, even the people who think he invented the wheel, will understand that he wasn't so much an inventor as a promoter and an integrator of other people's work.

      However, I think that if we underestimate the value of promoters and integrators, we miss the big picture of why some things become big, despite being flawed, and other things that are less flawed toil in obscurity. If you are an engineering type who believes that your device or app or whatever will change the world, you might be right about its potential, but you'd probably be wrong if you thought that the device could speak for itself. Every advance needs to overcome some sort of initial obstacle that can be described as simple inertia. Cars are faster than horses, but everyone had horses and the world was built around thousands of years of horse riding. If you think it was enough to simply build a car for it to be adopted, I'd say that you'd probably have waited much longer without a Henry Ford.

      People like Jobs and Edison deserve accolades, even if they didn't truly invent things. They just need to not receive more credit than they deserve, and I think that does moderate over time as historians go over the facts and present them.

    44. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd shoot your eye out.

    45. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      If somebody compared me to an egomaniacal, ethics-free, self-righteous jerk whose only real talent was as a pitchman, I'd be really offended. "Visionary" my ass.

      Maybe it's just calling him a "visionary" that is throwing me off, but when did this become about Ballmer?

    46. Re:If somebody compared me... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a monopoly, other than the ones that the government creates.

      How did the government create the Windows monopoly, then?

    47. Re:If somebody compared me... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If Jobs was that much of a fucking genius he'd have single-handedly invented the iPhone and mobile internet in the 1960s wouldn't he?

      When he was 5 years old? No, he wouldn't have. 5 year olds don't give a shit about creating new networking paradigms for the planet to use. His dad was showing him how to take apart and put together radios and TVs, it's fair to say that he was not concerned with creating a global network that can be accessed by a device that would need a power source and infrastructure that wasn't available yet.

      I don't know where the rest of your rant is coming from. Jobs was not a solitary genius, and I didn't claim he was, he was an asshole who knew how to get things done. Of the 3 people I mentioned (Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs), Jobs ranks last on my personal list. I think Bill Gates is more responsible for moving progress forward than Jobs, by virtue of the fact that his early operating systems directly contributed to computers being common in households (and please spare me your Gates rant, I use the term "his operating system" for brevity). Elon Musk ranks second on my list, but most of that is speculative, I don't think he's done his best work yet. Once Musk lands himself on Mars then we can revisit this discussion. Jobs is the only guy we can look at and see his entire legacy at this point. He was a good salesman, sure, and he definitely helped move forward the consumer technology industry, but please spare me your bullshit rant. I'm not a Jobs fanboy, the only Apple product I own is a first-generation iPod photo. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize and accept his contributions the same way I do with Dennis Ritchie, Linus Torvalds, or even Bjarn Stroustrup.

      None of the people I mentioned in this post are solely responsible for their accomplishments.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    48. Re:If somebody compared me... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Ballmer's a good pitchman?

    49. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Depends. How effective do you find used cars salesman? Because he has that vibe nailed.

    50. Re:If somebody compared me... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      He can't compare with creepy religiosity Jobs invoked during his famous product launches.

    51. Re:If somebody compared me... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That table doesn't include VAT among other things.

    52. Re:If somebody compared me... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not to mention DeBeers and their ilk.

    53. Re:If somebody compared me... by Raskolnikov42 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    54. Re:If somebody compared me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for goods and services?

    55. Re:If somebody compared me... by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does not have a monopoly. If a monopolistic position is obtained in a free market, it is always temporary simply because the market perceives the product to be vastly superior for the time, but after a period, this position is lost. Microsoft failed to make any real inroads into the server market. Microsoft has failed to gain any significant market share on mobile devices.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    56. Re:If somebody compared me... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But they do have a monopoly on the desktop. Unless you buy an Apple, you can't buy a desktop computer with any other OS. MS has about 90% share of desktop OSes -- you don't need 100% to be a monopoly.

      And they didn't get there by making a superior product, they got there because IBM had a superior product; the mantra was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". By the time Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS, Windows had the desktop OS market sewn up. And they used dirty tricks to stay there, rather than building a better product or having effective marketing.

    57. Re:If somebody compared me... by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Yes, today it's on the desktop, because they haven't moved any place else. If you want to break down markets into tiny pieces, you're going to find 'monopolies' everywhere.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    58. Re:If somebody compared me... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The desktop market isn't a "tiny piece" of anything, it's bigger than most markets.

    59. Re:If somebody compared me... by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Charitable donations aren't the only way of creating value in the world.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    60. Re:If somebody compared me... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      BSA

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. I don't tolerate CD players either by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess that's why Jobs came up with ipods.

  3. and Elon Musk publicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clearly has editing privileges at slashdot.

  4. Next Steve jobs? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So he's going to design really crappy electric cars for 10 years which will sell well with artists who are big on brand loyality and tollerate being abused.

    Next he's going to download various open source hardware car parts off the internet, put some faux wood and faux leather interior, and sell it to suave hipsters who he can ply on their on white/yuppie guilt to sell trendy fads and make them feel better about themselves, and then ignore any and all complaints for the next 10 years, esentiallly selling what should have been a $10k smart car for $20k.

    He'll then dictate what speakers, intake and exhaust you put on it, sue chevy for patent infringements on the volt, and get his crowd of loyal followers to cover up his mistakes.

    Then we'll start talking about how much of an innovater he was, but the people who did most of the real innovation will die quiet deaths, unnoticed by the technology he made popular.

    Or mabey we should stop using the term "The Next Steve Jobs" out of the context of meaning "the next George Pullman"

    1. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the walled garden "these cars will only run on approved Tesla roads or your warranty is void" bit. Of course, Tesla roads will go anywhere that anyone who is anyone would want to go, so it's not really an issue. That, and the hackers who keep finding places they can force an exit and run the car off along the large hobbyist road network.

      Maybe we need a car analogy?

    2. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! No shortage of bitter, mean spirited, vitriolic bile here!

    3. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next Steve Jobs just came out of my ass. No one pulled it out from there. I flushed it.

    4. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Then we'll start talking about how much of an innovater he was, but the people who did most of the real innovation will die quiet deaths,
      > unnoticed by the technology he made popular.
      Let us shortcut this process:
      Most products with a high difference between price and value are just remixes of well known principles, which limits the meaning of "innovative process" regarding an invention. Those innovations are themselves usually only discoveries or examples of craftsmanship requiring certain (available) tools and obiously available knowledge. Any craftsman with some business overview could reproduce.

      It may be the requirements that really make the difference, but the mass product itself is as cheap as possible, produced as cheap as possible and the tools used are not patented to prevent competitors from being able to achieve the same effect. The price is set based on acceptable limits and amount of features.

      But that does not make a good advertisement so you need an atmosphere of ballyhoo and CEOs that try to sell using as less technical description as possible :D

      The patent systems are lead ad absurdum by remixing known principles in a different field or just creating more examples of well known craftsmanship.

    5. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right, the real innovators will die a quiet death, probably very poor too.

    6. Re:Next Steve jobs? by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Who says that's not what he's going to do? After all Steve started out as a hacker, hippie giving/selling blue boxes (to make FREE phone calls) into using free and open source software to make and launch his set of companies.

      Sound familiar?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Next Steve jobs? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Like they have always done. See Edison and Bell vs Marconi and Tesla

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Next Steve jobs? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      woz was the hacker.

      jobs was a anti-social marketing fuckhead.

    9. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      esentiallly selling what should have been a $10k smart car for $20k.

      Make that $50k in Europe or Australia

    10. Re:Next Steve jobs? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And Elon created the Tesla's and his rockets etc. all by himself?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      He'll make sure to use a proprietary plug to charge the vehicle and connect it with he own proprietary network which no other cars can use.

    12. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Would you please choose whether you're going to claim that Jobs was the hippie hacker, or the marketing fuckhead, so that we can have a proper argument about it, kthnxbye.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:Next Steve jobs? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There was an article in Popular Mechanics some time ago about the engine design lead.

    14. Re:Next Steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about Bell, but Edison pretty much died broke. Tesla was at least chilling out at the Waldorf-Astoria at the time he shuffled off his mortal coil.

  5. Sponsored by by taucross · · Score: 3

    This Slashdot story sponsored by Kusm Nole Enterprises (TM)

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    1. Re:Sponsored by by bzipitidoo · · Score: 0

      Really. What struck me about the headline was the loud hero worship of the almighty super special individual. No one, no matter how special, can change facts of nature. This hero worship also shows another huge hole in American thinking. We have a terrible tendency to pick out one "key" person for lionizing, when it actually took a large team to accomplish some feat. In the case of a business leader, there's some justification for that. But still, it's praising Jobs while ignoring that Woz ever existed. Actors would be nothing without good writers and directors. Niel Armstrong would never have set foot on the moon if a massive organization hadn't stood behind him.

      As to the facts of nature, I see several ways the electric car could play out. If batteries cannot be greatly improved, then the future might not be electric cars. Where is the flying car that was hoped to be just around the corner in the 1940s? 70 years later, it's still years away. What was not appreciated was how hard flying is. Now with driverless cars on the horizon, we will be able to extend that to control of flying machines, and may at last see the flying car.

      If not batteries, we may instead come up with cheap way to produce biodiesel. Then the electric car may then never move beyond the experimental. We may also stay with the hybrid. Diesel electric locomotives have existed and worked excellently for decades. There are other directions to explore. Really, our road design while real simple and basic, is terribly primitive. Maglev is much talked about, but there are many other ideas. What if we came up with walkers along the lines of the Star Wars AT-AT, but scaled down for personal transportation? With decent computer control, it could be possible. What kind of road would be best for them, maybe something like the generously spaced apart round stones used for footpaths? Could they jump small streams, so that we wouldn't have to have so many bridges which are the highest maintenance items of our roads?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    2. Re:Sponsored by by WGFCrafty · · Score: 5, Funny

      While I concur completely, your at-at provides a delightful mental image. Instead of people on the train tracks you'd hear:

      "Suzy A., 16 was flattened today when she supposedly ignored the warnings and an A.B.C. Advanced Bipedals Car) stepped on her. This is the fourth flattening of a teenager this month, up from two over the last three months. Police believe this is linked to a social media meme where children attempt to use the A.B.C.s to smash walnuts with the word 'illiteracy' written on them, and upload the video. This is Sean Parsons with KDRT 42."

    3. Re:Sponsored by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF that was the best comment I've read on /. all week, but you missed the left parenthesis.

    4. Re:Sponsored by by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      As Star Wars inspired road designs go, I'd prefer highways managed by a Wampa system instead. All drivers who slow down traffic are beaten in the head and left hanging to die somewhere.

      Anyway, as the article ends the reason for "why electric cars?" instead of the alternatives is laid down. The hope is that they'll be powered almost directly by solar energy. Both the battery manufacturing and the solar panels need to become sustainable things to manufacture and keep running for that dream to play out.

    5. Re:Sponsored by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then the electric car may then never move beyond the experimental."

      Experimental? I've been driving back and forth to work on electricity in my Chevy Volt for 14 months - there's nothing "experimental" about it. Its the most advanced production vehicle ever created. Electric cars like the Model S are not an experiment, they are the *best* cars on the planet.

      Try google'ing "Global Net Exports"

    6. Re:Sponsored by by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      What if we came up with walkers along the lines of the Star Wars AT-AT, but scaled down for personal transportation? With decent computer control, it could be possible. What kind of road would be best for them, maybe something like the generously spaced apart round stones used for footpaths?

      Walking vehicles are a bad idea because of pressure. An M1A1 tank - a heavy tracked vehicle exerts less ground pressure than a family car. I walking tank like an AT-AT - or even a walking car - would exert an enormous down pressure.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Sponsored by by firewrought · · Score: 1

      What struck me about the headline was the loud hero worship of the almighty super special individual. No one, no matter how special, can change facts of nature. This hero worship also shows another huge hole in American thinking. We have a terrible tendency to pick out one "key" person for lionizing, when it actually took a large team to accomplish some feat.

      Good call... I had a Randian once tell me that "only an individual can do something great/advance technology/bring about progress/whatever: groups of people can't". Since then, I've seen many examples of how this thinking is wrong. I think it's just that it's easiest to mentally grok the one man (Neil Armstrong, for instance) and ignore the whole (the army of engineers and analysts and so forth that put him on the moon).

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    8. Re:Sponsored by by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Diesel electric locomotives have existed and worked excellently for decades.

      Trains are hybrid for a completely different reason than cars are. It takes far more torque to get a train moving than a diesel engine can generate, and imagine the size of the clutch it would need? Electric, otoh, has its maximum torque at its minimum speed. So they generate electricity with a diesel generator to feed that big electric motor.

      Cars are only hybrid because the batteries don't last long enough to go very far.

      Maglev is much talked about

      Do you have any idea how much electricity would be required for that? Hint: WAY too much. It's simply not energy efficient.

  6. I'm from Portland, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I liked Elon Musk before it was cool. Just thought you should know.

    1. Re:I'm from Portland, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Elon who? Sorry, I don't keep up with the mainstream.

  7. Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So he's just another celebrity businessman who treats his employees like shit while taking the credit for designs he didn't come up with himself? You'll be comparing him to Thomas Edison next.

    1. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed, asshole.

    2. Re:Celebrity CEOs by NetNinja · · Score: 1

      Uh you have a choice. Don't work there. seems like a fairly obvious solution to the issue. Start your own company and see if it survives on hopes and dreams, a kinder, gentler company.

    3. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Eberhard

      Musk basically ripped the company out from under him.

    4. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So he's just another celebrity businessman who treats his employees like shit while taking the credit for designs he didn't come up with himself? You'll be comparing him to Thomas Edison next."
      - Anonymous Coward

    5. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe you can borrow money from your parents to start that business, right? It sure worked for Tagg Romney.

    6. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could choose not to play a game that has the rules stacked against you.

    7. Re:Celebrity CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article provides no information about anything being "ripped out from under him". As startups grow, founders are often pushed to the side if they don't have the experience to handle the transition. Eberhard had *zero* experience in the car biz.

      "This summer, Mr. Eberhard stepped down from the C.E.O. spot amid production delays and was replaced with interim C.E.O. Michael Marks. Then last week, Tesla appointed a permanent C.E.O." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/an-unhappy-tesla-founder-or-an-imposter/

      Sounds like he wasn't getting the job done - so he lost it.

    8. Re:Celebrity CEOs by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      From what I understood they ran into production delays in the Roadster due to changes in the design imposed by Musk. Then Musk said he couldn't handle production and canned him. Then they did design changes to make it like in the original design. The problem was namely in the transmission.

  8. Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by neminem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    send us to Mars, usher in a new era of world peace, and while he's at it, make us all sandwiches?

    How did this make it to the front page? It's not even a slashvertizement for a product; that might occasionally be useful. It's a slashvertizement for a person, that doesn't even have any useful information in it beyond "this person is awesome". It doesn't even make the slightest effort to argue the statement given in the title: I'd love to see an "era of electric cars" get ushered in.

    1. Re:Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the "send us to Mars" part is a possibility.

    2. Re:Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neon lights, Nobel Prize
      When a leader speaks, the reflection lies
      You won't have to follow me
      Only you can set me free

      I sell the things you need to be
      I'm the smiling face of your T.V.
      I'm the Cult of Personality
      I exploit you; still you love me
      I tell you one and one makes three
      I'm the Cult of Personality
      Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
      I'm the Cult of Personality
      the Cult of Personality
      the Cult of Personality

      Neon lights, Nobel Prize
      When a leader speaks, that leader dies
      You won't have to follow me
      Only you can set you free

      (Guitar solo)

      You gave me fortune, you gave me fame
      You gave me power in your God's name
      I'm every person you need to be
      I'm, the, Cult, of, Per, Son, Al, Ity

    3. Re:Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Actually the "send us to Mars" part is a possibility.

      Who the fuck wants to go to Mars?

      I don't mean we shouldn't have a manned expedition to Mars, that would be cool and everything. But no one in their right mind would want to go on a 1-2 year long round trip holiday cooped up in a tin can, broken only by a chance to see some red dust and rocks when you actually get to Mars.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To get away from this planet populated by people like you?

      Sign me right the fuck up.

    5. Re:Presumably he'll also cure cancer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if I get on the list ahead of you, pal.

  9. He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by linatux · · Score: 5, Funny

    then sue the crap out of everyone who produces something with wheels?

    1. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not everyone, only the ones that produce round wheels.

    2. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by scottrocket · · Score: 4, Funny

      then sue the crap out of everyone who produces something with wheels?

      Only rounded wheels-be fair.

    3. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Including rectangular wheels with rounded corners.

    4. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @lunatix: I see what you did there.
      Unfortunately, if it's obvious, it probably won't get patented, but if it still does get patented, then it won't be defensible.
      In summary: your comment is irrelevant and reveals a deep-seated jealousy of innovators who put their hearts and soles into their work.

    5. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by linatux · · Score: 1

      Not to mention their souls. Yeah - it was a cheap shot at a dead guy. Honestly, I'm impressed by innovation - I just feel that if more time was spent innovating & less spent trying to cripple the competition, the world would be a much better place.

    6. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      So my Fordroid will be using treads soon?

      On the bright side, I'll be able to control tread speed on both sides independently if I want to.

      Oh, and the radio will work no matter how I'm sitting :-)

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    7. Re:He's going to patent lots of obvious stuff by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Then the producer of my previous set of tires will be in the clear. Lucky for me there's a guy in town who shaves them down to round. That's how it works, right? You buy something that doesn't violate patents, and then modify it to work like it should.

  10. Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 0

    Call me when electric cars are making the same power and torque as an 8/71 or 16/71 big block then I'll get excited. Electric super cars? Pfft.

    --
    Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    1. Re:Electric cars... yawn by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever seen a modern locomotive? Scaling power in an electric car is far, far easier than scaling it in a fossil-fuel equiv. vehicle.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:Electric cars... yawn by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right? Gasoline-driven engines don't produce anywhere near the torque or power that an electric motor is capable of, depending on the type of electric motor being used.

      Gasoline/diesel didn't win out because they're more powerful than electric, they won out because you can fill a gas tank in minutes, and go hundreds of miles on it.

    3. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and the fact that when you floor a gas/diesel engine (especially with a highly tuned 4 banger, 6, V8, or higher)...you hear the primal roar of your engine coming out from the exhaust. You feel connected to the car. Then you have the ----- quietness ----- of a speeding electric supercar. Which pulls harder on your driving heart?

    4. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Sound can be synthesized if you really must. Efficiency, cost, acceleration and lack of noise can't.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    5. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that, um, it's a Diesel engine running a generator that runs the electric motor.... Um....

    6. Re:Electric cars... yawn by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      I like lopey V8s, burbling boxers, and screaming 3 or 4 rotors as much as anyone, but the Killacycle sounds kind of like a rocket when it takes off. It's not bad. Certainly not silent.

    7. Re:Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 1

      Show me a car sporting these engines you talk of on a track and I'll take back my statement. Hell on a drag strip 400m and sub 7 seconds is all your fancy electric car has to do... no takers? No proof? Didn't think so. All those heavy batteries ruin power to weight.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    8. Re:Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 1

      So can sex... but it will never be as good as the real thing. Some new BMW's do this and it is terrible.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    9. Re:Electric cars... yawn by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 2

      The one that's faster and corner's better.

    10. Re:Electric cars... yawn by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      You've had simulated sex with a BMW? That does sound like it would be terrible.

    11. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they didn't work because of idealized properties of different types of engines but due to practical problems of like say fuel sources (and their respective energy densities). No really, tell me more.

      Captcha: semester, you either need another semester of engineering or more actual experience. I can't tell which.

    12. Re:Electric cars... yawn by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the tesla roadster. They literally had to limit the motor as the first prototypes could bend their own axle with the torque it produced. It still has faster acceleration than any non-electric car produced so far, even the fancy Italians

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:Electric cars... yawn by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You use your dragster to get to work? Or for grocery shopping? How many nitromethane filling stations are on the way to the post office?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    14. Re:Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 1

      Nitromethane? There are a variety of fuels out there that can be bought in bulk for cars in the seven second bracket... VPImport, Methanol, add good squirt of NOS. How about we switch the argument to range then, how many LeMans cars are running for 24 hours on batteries? Plus the summary (you did read the summary right?) said "electric-powered supercars" how many Lambos, Ferraris, Bugatti do you see being driven to work? How many for grocery shopping? Tesla roadster runs 12.7 quarter... so Subaru WRX times... wow! Street car running sub 7 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwF-kr91uxU http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/22/videos-worlds-fastest-street-car-drives-1-200-miles-whips-off/

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    15. Re:Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 1

      Tesla roadster runs ~12.7 quarter... don't mistake poor engineering and production of an axle as evidence of performance. Cheap as Subaru STI beats Tesla http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDFmbZorx_g&feature=related I think the Italians are pretty safe.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    16. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a car sporting these engines you talk of on a track and I'll take back my statement. Hell on a drag strip 400m and sub 7 seconds is all your fancy electric car has to do... no takers? No proof? Didn't think so. All those heavy batteries ruin power to weight.

      Whereas not quite the sub-7 second...this is a home-made, street legal Datsun:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rVTIpS5zb4
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjW05jxVOpU
      0-60 in about 1.8 seconds; 1/4 mile in 10.258

      Imagine what kind of power could be put into an actual drag racer from a company with money.

    17. Re:Electric cars... yawn by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of cars are overkill for daily life. But speed and power are seductive - especially when it's quiet and understated. EVs are very good at that, even if the driving range is yet anywhere near that of ICEs.
      Yes, I read the summary but I've also read, more than once, what Musk wrote on the Tesla site 7 years ago. Have a look.
      http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me
       

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    18. Re:Electric cars... yawn by overbaud · · Score: 1

      What he is describing does not sound like a super car. Yes it has advantages but it is not going to produce anything 'super', getting enough energy from a battery to propel a car down the quater mile in a 'super' time is not gonna happen. Getting enough power from a battery to do 'super' sustained high speed runs is not gonna happen. Thousands of years of human existance would suggest cars in general are overkill for daily life. Being quiet vs being loud and noisey is subjective, some people like noisey and loud. EV are not good at speed, perhaps your version of 'speed' and my version of 'speed' are different. You also failed to address any of what I put forward such as the widely available fuels, the fact that there are road driven sub 7 second cars and that all documented races by Tesla are poor... I don't consider any thing running double digits in quarter mile fast. Methanol is a naturally occuring substance that can be made from waste products so it is green as well. So like I said at the very start electric cars... yawn.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    19. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So can sex... but it will never be as good as the real thing. Some new BMW's do this and it is terrible.

      I think the correct analogy here is that modern condoms will never be quite as good as the ones made from pig's bladder.

    20. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're getting close to your expectations.

      Brief reading tells me that there is not nearly the same level of expense and engineering talent going into these as even your average stock petrol car. The electrig drag vehicles seem to be running DC motors because it is much easier to modify/redesign them or run them outside of the intended specifications.

      Also one of the main limiting factors is getting power to the motor (my guess would be that lugging around all the batteries would be what makes the drag times so slow) so there is not a lot of incentive elsewhere to build an electric motor suitable for drag racing (power delivery over wide rev range, extremely high power, low weight and low lifetime), nor is there a lot of drive towards making batteries that can dump their whole load in 6 seconds (I wonder if anyone has tried super capacitors).

    21. Re:Electric cars... yawn by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      How many nitromethane filling stations are on the way to the post office?

      >Starts counting Taco Bell, Taco Cabana, El Azteca, Rio Bravo, Mama Ninfa's,......

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    22. Re:Electric cars... yawn by Wraitholme · · Score: 1

      Heh, your stock Subaru is only sitting on 11.7 quarter... lets see it do sub 7 seconds at the same price. The relevant number for talking torque is the 0-60, which is 4 seconds to the Subaru's 7+. That's where the limiting had to happen. The Tesla Roadster has acceleration figures that match cars significantly more expensive than it. Finally, take these cars and stick $20's worth of fuel in, then see if they make the same range as the Roadster on $20's worth of electricity :P

    23. Re:Electric cars... yawn by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That, and the fact that when you floor a gas/diesel engine (especially with a highly tuned 4 banger, 6, V8, or higher)...you hear the primal roar of your engine coming out from the exhaust. You feel connected to the car. Then you have the ----- quietness ----- of a speeding electric supercar. Which pulls harder on your driving heart?

      A lot of high quality expensive cars pride themselves on their quietness and comfort (Rolls Royce or whatever). Driving is not just about creating road-going racing cars.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Electric cars... yawn by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between 100 mph which is overkill for most driving and 200 mph which is overkill for any road driving.

      Same with acceleration. There is simply no need ever to be able to do a standing quarter mile in less than 10 seconds on the road.

      The question of your right to drive a pointlessly fast car is something in which I have little interest, other than to say that the proper place for a racing vehicle is on a racetrack.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:Electric cars... yawn by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Don't know about lopey V8s or burbling boxers, but in all likelihood people like what they remember from childhood, unless they pay attention and realize some of it wasn't so nice. Burbling V8s sound terrible unless you use a crossover exhaust. Flat-crank V8s found in Ferraris and the last Lotus Esprit, that's entirely different. Here's one that'll get some hate mail... V-twins top the heap of ugly noisemakers. Bang-bang... bang-bang...bang-bang... all that's missing is the chitty-chitty.

    26. Re:Electric cars... yawn by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      "There is simply no need ever to be able to do a standing quarter mile in less than 10 seconds on the road"

      I can think of one. Somebody's shooting at you. In that situation, I'd happily take any amount of acceleration as long as I can steer it. But there must be a break-even cost between increasing acceleration and having bullet-resistance.

    27. Re:Electric cars... yawn by haruchai · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell and what that blog posts affirms, building supercars was never Tesla's ultimate goal. In the end, it's to expand their popularity while building ever-more affordable and practical EVs with a rich man's toy as a 1st step.
      I have several reasons for wanting to see EVs ( cars and buses ) as the de facto means of transport instead of ICEs.
      1) Irrelevance of fuel type - that becomes a problem for the utility. Just deliver my electrons safely and efficiently.
      2) Central point of control for emissions of all types. Even if we can't get rid of coal, oil and gas in a hurry, managing the emissions is better done centrally than for each of hundreds of millions of small vehicles in residential areas.
      (Note: Even if we switched 100% to methanol and that was derived only from renewable resources, there's still a local emissions problem such as ground-level ozone, which forms smog)
      3) Benefits to the grid - since daytime and peak usage is so much larger that nighttime and off-peak, power gets dumped cheaply or generation shut off to cope. This has costs in both revenue losses and equipment wear. Having lots of EVs charging at night partially alleviates both problems and, with V2G, can be tapped for peak-shaving or to reduce the amount of spinning reserve.
        Also, EVs can be used in blackouts to power homes - something disaster victims can appreciate. The same can be done with a diesel generator ( or modified auto or truck) but there's that emissions problem again.
      4) Greater efficiency - liquid fuels of all types are vastly more power/energy dense than the current battery techs. But, even leaving aside the emissions, the ICEs waste a lot of that power. Batteries (and supercapacitors) will only get better - likely faster than ICEs can become more efficient.

      ICEs are not going away anytime soon but there are lots of vehicles that can and should be fully converted to EVs as quickly as we can afford to do - city buses, taxis, company fleets, delivery van, post office vehicles. The rest can come over the course of the next few decades.

      You love speed and that's fine but there's a bigger picture here and your methanol / nitrous funny cars are not going solve those problems. We've spent a century building an electrical infrastructure that's truly improved our lives. Let's get on with the next expansion of that.

      You can carry on building a bottle-rocket mobile that'll complete the 1/4 in the blink of an eye but that's not the answer for the vast majority, not now, likely not ever.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  11. don't for get the $200 oil change at there dealer by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    don't for get the $200 oil change at there dealers.

    And they will use DRM lock downs and sue the jiffy lubes that have a workaround.

  12. Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Look, the whole concept of cars is very OLD HAT, regardless of whether they're powered by gas or whether they're powered by electricity. Furthermore, they're the wrong solution to the real problem.

    The real solution is to build a proper high-speed rail network throughout North America. We aren't talking about mere 300 km/h trains like are commonly found in Europe. We need to be talking about trains going just under the speed of sound. 1200 km/h trains, if you will. A solid network connecting the major cities of America would render many cars useless.

    Then it is possible to address the next problems: suburban sprawl. Cities should be highly centralized, and built upwards. It is absolutely stupid to build suburbs. Those who want to live in a rural area should be doing so because they farm. Those who aren't farming should be living in dense cities, where public transit can be effectively used. Once that is achieved, cars will not be necessary for the vast majority of people.

    If Mr. Musk were thinking big, NEW HAT things like this, then he'd truly be a visionary. But all we get is him thinking OLD HAT ideas about cars and rockets. We need NEW HAT ideas, not OLD HAT ideas.

    1. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      Having just visited Japan and ridden on its awe-inspiring Shinkansen lines, I wish I had the mod points now to mod the parent up.

    2. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're unaware of his Hyper Loop project, or just trolling.

    3. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I've been in favor of high-speed rail for a very long time but 750 mph trains? Might as well construct lot of vacuum tunnels and get them moving at 2000 with the lower air-resistance.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real solution is to build a proper high-speed rail network throughout North America. We aren't talking about mere 300 km/h trains like are commonly found in Europe. We need to be talking about trains going just under the speed of sound. 1200 km/h trains, if you will. A solid network connecting the major cities of America would render many cars useless.

      And this is a real solution to the wrong problem. Most cars aren't used to get from city to city; they're used to get from home to work. So you'd be constructing an ultra-expensive rail system to transport...well, practically nobody. We have something similar to that now. It's called Amtrak, and ridership is so pathetic it can only survive with hefty government subsidies fleeced from overburdened taxpayers. But I hear it makes a nice jobs program with great benefits.

      Then it is possible to address the next problems: suburban sprawl. Cities should be highly centralized, and built upwards. It is absolutely stupid to build suburbs. Those who want to live in a rural area should be doing so because they farm. Those who aren't farming should be living in dense cities, where public transit can be effectively used. Once that is achieved, cars will not be necessary for the vast majority of people.

      So, at a stroke, you simply think people shouldn't be allowed to live outside a city unless they are farming. Heaven forbid that they might just not want to live cheek-by-jowl with seething masses of humanity in studio apartments. What a pity we have these things called "liberty" and "choice" which allow us to live where we choose regardless of whether it meets your authoritarian approval or not. Wouldn't the world just be a much nicer place if people would just do as they're told instead of, you know, exercising free will and stuff?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    5. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Rail can be used for a lot of things besides people.

      In the us it (still) makes economic sense to put things cross-country on a tractor trailer while in Europe trucks don't make sense until the last 50 miles.

      Amtrak has it's problems because it's a weird hybrid between private sector for-profit exploitation and government funding of said profit. Amtrak is still in business even though gas and a rental car for the whole trip makes more economic sense than a one-way ticket with their once-a-day service.

      The problem in the us is that the electorate doesn't want to pay for anything but still expects similar services than countries with double and triple their (flat) tax rates.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Look out your nearest window. What do you see? Does it look anything like Japan?

    7. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Dzimas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. It looks like a wasteland of Walmart parking lots and awfully designed suburban tract housing. We should fix that.

    8. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      Yes, let's use engineering to tackle social problems. That always works.

    9. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Then it is possible to address the next problems: suburban sprawl. Cities should be highly centralized, and built upwards. It is absolutely stupid to build suburbs. Those who want to live in a rural area should be doing so because they farm. Those who aren't farming should be living in dense cities, where public transit can be effectively used. Once that is achieved, cars will not be necessary for the vast majority of people.

      Yeah, free will and choice are sort of overrated really. Not to mention fattening.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkWQ-39KLo&t=1m36s

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      And this is a real solution to the wrong problem. Most cars aren't used to get from city to city; they're used to get from home to work.

      Right, but you are looking at it backwards. People don't travel from city to city because there is no easy way to do so. You could spend hours driving or go for a quick sexual assault at the airport, but nothing is as easy as a train.

      Rather than just trying to react to what is happening you need to start shaping it for the better.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      In this day and age we should be able to eliminate at least 50% of all travel. Why do I need to commute 50km to work where I just sit in front of computer screens for 8 hours? I'd much rather stay at home and have a 3d camera pointed at me. Commuting is bad for the environment and costs me time I could spend with my family. Most jobs in 1st world could be done without physical presence. All that's needed is a change in employers' perception of what "being at work" means and an HD/3D version of something like Google Hangout.

    12. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What most people fail to realize is that suburbs are what they are because of government help. I used to live in a suburb; it was cheaper, cleaner, safer than the city, with almost all the same amenities, at the price of a slightly longer transit. However I'm not kidding myself, I was able to made that choice because the government let me have that choice. If there was no political will to develop roads, power lines, water pipes into the suburbs, and promises made to house manufacturing companies, etc, my suburb would never have existed.

      No one is saying you're not free to live outside the city. However, what makes economical and environmental sense _is_ to build upwards (no no, seriously. Check out some urban planning classes.). If the government didn't _help_ me live in a practical, comfortable suburb, I would never have made the choice to leave the city. The choice would have been between an existing city with services where I'm more cramped, or what amounts to farm fields with a road leading to the highway.

    13. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by operagost · · Score: 1

      We do still have freight trains in the USA, you know.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by aethelrick · · Score: 1

      Look, the whole concept of cars is very OLD HAT, regardless of whether they're powered by gas or whether they're powered by electricity. Furthermore, they're the wrong solution to the real problem.

      Good luck with that idea, you have just completely disregarded all of the people and infrastructure in existence in one fell swoop! If you're going to make crazy suggestions, you may as well say "hell... what we need is teleporters, then we won't need cars at all". I feel these things have an about equal practical chance of being realised. Meanwhile in the real world, new design and invention typically has to improve on something or be so damn good that people rush to change their behaviour to include the obviously better new thing. New inventions that don't do one of these tend to stay on the drawing board, or on the shelves. Also I'd like to point out that it's better to have a "wrong solution" to the right problem than a "right solution" to the wrong problem. Many of the most useful things I've come across can be described this way. Cars are locally efficient for the user, but traffic is nasty and inefficient for the system. Trouble is... the user does not care! The average user ponders trains and thinks... "trains don't go where I need them to go; thus trains suck ass for me". This is a great example of the "wrong solution" to the "right problem". I don't think this simple problem will ever be solved with transport that runs on rails when users are free to choose alternatives. A good compromise is to make a better, cleaner car. It does not take away choice (we can still build super-sonic trains), but it does solve some of the problems that concern us the most about the environment. We also get to use the existing infrastructure we spent so much money on, and we don't have to somehow deal with the massive congestion centralising the whole frikkin population in cities would cause. There is no one true way, diversity rules

    15. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      but nothing is as easy as a train..

      As someone who has used Amtrak to convince his children that trains aren't so bad, I must say that you are sadly confused.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    16. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If trains became the main mode of travel you can bet your genitals that the TSA would be there either giving you a virtual strip search or a groping. Airports already serve any purpose that trains would, and are faster.

    17. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's use engineering to tackle social problems. That always works.

      Within a margin of error, of course.

    18. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Airports already serve any purpose that trains would, and are faster.

      For now. Trains in vacuum tunnels would be both faster and less expensive on a per-trip and maintenance basis. For most trips where proper modern systems have been implemented, trains are already the better option (see: Japan, parts of Europe). Initial construction costs are pretty steep, but could be worth while if fuel prices continue to rise, or the desire for global rapid commutes increases.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    19. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Those "social" problems often are anything but. The way zoning is done in the US means it is hard to combine office buildings or commerce with habitation zones. Then there is the fact that a lot of money gets spent by the state on highways and nearly zilch on high-speed rail and you get to the present situation. Regardless the situation is more pressing in Japan. They don't have oil and space is at a premium so they selected the solution which made more sense to them.

    20. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Just go to a park if you want to jog. Any reasonable city will have several parks... For me I am mostly concerned with noise levels. There should be strict standards on noise levels on apartments but there aren't. You should be able to at least know what the noise level is, these things can be measured, but good luck finding it.

    21. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. California's coast has population centers that are comparable to Japan's. It is an absolute shame that we do not yet have a high-speed train line connecting San Francisco to San Diego.

    22. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      California's coast has population centers that are comparable to Japan's.

      Yes, 300 miles apart.

      It would be cheaper to buy everyone on the train a new Ferrari.

    23. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      Yes, 300 miles apart.

      In other words, perfect distance for a high-speed train. The distance between Tokyo and Hiroshima is like 500 miles, and there is a Shinkansen line connecting the two.

      Please feel free to take your head out of your ass sometime.

    24. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      And what happens as soon as people step off the Shinkansen in either of those cities? What's the passenger's next move?

      Trains cannot run in a vacuum, so to speak. We don't have, and will never have, the necessary transit infrastructure to make them cost effective.

      Basically, you can build and operate hundred-billion-dollar empty trains with your own money. Leave me out of it.

    25. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      We used engineering to create the social problems in the first place. ;)

    26. Re:Cars are old hat, and the wrong solution. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Having spent far too much of my life in long commutes, I tend to agree. But there is a work dynamic that can't easily be done long-distance.
      At least, I have the option to occasionally work from home.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  13. Slashvertisement? by Chaonici · · Score: 0

    I've never heard of this guy until now, and the post is written like it's meant to glorify him as the third coming of Jesus -- implying, of course, that Steve Jobs was the second coming.

    I wonder who got paid for this submission.

    1. Re:Slashvertisement? by davydagger · · Score: 2

      slashdot has gotten pretty bad recently. need more metamods and more real geeks on the firehouse. Less FUD, Less brownshirts, and less corporate sponsored ego trips.

    2. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the CEO of both SpaceX and Tesla Motors (2 companies that appear from time to time on slashdot due to their geeky nature), He also the person who started Paypal and sold it to eBay (the evil!).

      In any case, SpaceX is a major achievement, a space craft "done right" from cost considerations to the general design. Hopefully, they will get a space craft that is human-rated soon. Really, SpaceX has shown great achievements so far and hopefully will continue to do so.

      Tesla Motors is pushing the technology curve with electric cars. While nothing revolutionary, definitely on the technological forefront. They help make the push for electric cars something average consumers can somewhat see on the horizon (still too expensive for the average family but not completely out of reach especially for the upper-middle class).

      And we all know the evil Paypal. While i don't know much about it's time before the eBay buyout, it's legacy will be here for quite a while. Well, at least the money gained was eventually used to fund SpaceX....

    3. Re:Slashvertisement? by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Informative

      You've seriously never heard of Elon Musk? What rock have you been living under?

      He's the financier behind Tesla Motors, which has been talked about many times over the years on Slashdot. He also fincanced SpaceX, which got a lot of press during the X Prize coverage. He also founded PayPal, and got a lot of press through that. There've been documentaries about him, and about his companies, some of which are available on Netflix if you're so inclined (Revenge of the Electric Car has a *lot* of interview time with Musk, if you'd like to get an idea of what kind of person he really is). http://www.revengeoftheelectriccar.com/

      Come to it, having seen that movie, and his interviews in the movie, he doesn't come off as anywhere near the kind of jackass that Jobs was.

    4. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Steve Jobs came many times (all iPad, iPod, iBook etc versions) per his fans, I am not sure howmanyeth coming would be that of Elon.

    5. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for how he pushed Eberhard out of the company...

      http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2009/06/22/tesla-founders-feud-a-cautionary-tale/

    6. Re:Slashvertisement? by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      Wow, a comment with a score above 2 which isn't a joke or a dig at Steve Jobs.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    7. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I hear this guy's name all I think about is the Muskmelon (Cucumis melo).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskmelon

    8. Re:Slashvertisement? by tloh · · Score: 1

      huh. I mostly remember him for once being married to Talulah Riley. How he managed to catch but not hold on to such a hottie will forever taint the guy as a loser in my eyes regardless of how successful he is in other areas of life.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    9. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP must likely meant it in the way "no idea who that is".

      Obviously I have heard and read about Tesla e.t.c., but if you asked me either who Elon is or who is behind SpaceX (I would have guessed at Carmack if I had to name someone), I would have no clue. Put those two things together and I am on more familiar grounds, so for all the good he does, his name (at least for now) is not widely recognized.

    10. Re:Slashvertisement? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      huh. I mostly remember him for once being married to Talulah Riley. How he managed to catch but not hold on to such a hottie will forever taint the guy as a loser in my eyes regardless of how successful he is in other areas of life.

      "...and yet no matter how good she looks to you at that moment, somewhere out there is a bloke who's sick of putting up with her shit"

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    11. Re:Slashvertisement? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      huh. I mostly remember him for once being married to Talulah Riley. How he managed to catch but not hold on to such a hottie will forever taint the guy as a loser in my eyes regardless of how successful he is in other areas of life.

      However rich, attractive, clever or amusing you are, it takes two to make a relationship work. Unless you are a close friend you cannot possibly comment on the reasons either for their marriage or divorce.

      This is irrespective of the ridiculously sexist idea that a woman is some sort of prize that you win for being good at something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they seem to be sort of 'back together'...

    13. Re:Slashvertisement? by tloh · · Score: 1

      I just took a brief glance at your comment history and I have to say: You are a thoughtful, intense, but humorless SOB. Are you a woman? (hint: joke) Or maybe my efforts at levity hit a personal nerve? If that is the case, I'm sorry for your relationship issues. A joke in this context is not intended to be taken personally. Given the nature of your response, I think you would not object to me in honestly wishing BOTH Elon and Talulah well (joking aside) both personally and professionally in their respective lives.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    14. Re:Slashvertisement? by tloh · · Score: 1

      pics or it didn't happen! :-P

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    15. Re:Slashvertisement? by Doubting+Sapien · · Score: 1

      I heard it was the other way around. SHE divorced HIM because he was too wrapped up in running his business to bother being much of a husband.

      --
      ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
  14. oh stop it by geekoid · · Score: 0

    Space X is not "paradigm-shifting industry disruption. "
    Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's certainly awesome and cool, but lets not get carried away.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:oh stop it by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they can turn a profit on selling Falcon 9 launches anywhere near the price points they claim to be able to achieve, then it will change the universe.

    2. Re:oh stop it by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      The Universe won't be changed all that much; it's quite large.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:oh stop it by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      The Universe won't be changed all that much; it's quite large.

      Yeah, at least it will change our star system.

    4. Re:oh stop it by khallow · · Score: 1

      True, it probably won't affect much more than a sphere a few hundred million light years in diameter.

    5. Re:oh stop it by speederaser · · Score: 1

      If they can turn a profit on selling Falcon 9 launches anywhere near the price points they claim to be able to achieve, then it will change the universe.

      Indeed, the Walmart of space. People like the GP like to sneer at the lowest-cost vendor but lowering the cost of access to space into a whole new range like SpaceX is doing is damn hard, and the payoff is going to be incredible.

  15. Seriously?? by lkcl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    where's that slashdot article that came up a couple of days ago, about velomobiles being 80x more efficient than electric cars? didn't it have some quite obvious maths that showed that if all cars in the USA were converted to electric, it would require 7,000 GWh of electricity just to charge them every day? what that velomobiles article didn't also cover is that it's highly unlikely that the world has enough lithium and neodymium to go round to supply all those vehicles.

    i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be, then they have to be ultra-efficient (350kg) ultra-streamlined (Cd 0.15) parallel diesel hybrids with a 5kW (7HP) diesel motor and a 10kW (13HP) electric motor running off of a CVT (quadbike) gearbox.

    perhaps this is some sort of spiritual test of my patience when people make these kinds of statements "elon musk will be the next steve jobs for recommending that the world's population use more of our planet's natural resources than its humans can actually get hold of", or am i missing something here?

    1. Re:Seriously?? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I thought electric cars made gears obsolete, so reintroducing them would appear to be a step backwards, as one 'gear' supplies maximum torque surely?

      A hybrid is an okay compromise for now, but let's face it, gas guzzlers are ancient tech with too many parts to go wrong. Once the infrastructure is in place, everything will be electric. It's a bit like the comparison with SSD/HD hybrids and pure SSD drives. A compromise is okay for now, but we'll reach the future quicker by going for pure SSD.

      As for your other points, I'm not sure how being lighter will make too much difference, since electricity is already at least twice as cheap as gas. Ultra-streamlined? I think the 0-60 in 4 seconds is good enough for anyone ;)

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    2. Re:Seriously?? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      perhaps this is some sort of spiritual test of my patience when people make these kinds of statements "elon musk will be the next steve jobs for recommending that the world's population use more of our planet's natural resources than its humans can actually get hold of", or am i missing something here?

      All you're missing is the tunnel vision.

    3. Re:Seriously?? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Well, if a CVT makes my electric car sound more like an old fashioned electric fan, and less like a dentist's drill, while I drive down the highway, I might give up a little efficiency.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    4. Re:Seriously?? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      didn't it have some quite obvious maths that showed that if all cars in the USA were converted to electric, it would require 7,000 GWh of electricity just to charge them every day?

      I don't think anyone is suggesting that we immediately replace all gas-powered cars with electric cars overnight using our existing infrastructure and power grid. It's going to take a long time, and our energy sector is going to come with it. More solar energy is absorbed by the earth every hour than humans use in a year. It's completely feasible to have an all-solar energy grid that powers everything we need it to and then some, it will just take a lot of time and significant investment to get anywhere near that point. It's just the case right now that we have an infrastructure built on supporting gas-powered vehicles. That is what needs to change. It's also safe to say that we haven't found every source of natural resources that this planet has to offer, and we haven't even begun to look outside of our planet for additional resources. Not to mention manufacturing our own from available materials.

      In short, not only is it possible, but Elon Musk is right for doing his part to help push people in that direction. His direction isn't the only feasible one though, so feel free to compete with him.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Seriously?? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wonder if they can dispose of that whine in electric motors.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:Seriously?? by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be, then they have to be ultra-efficient (350kg) ultra-streamlined (Cd 0.15) parallel diesel hybrids

      You mean a SERIES hybrid. Parallel hybrids (e.g. Prius) are a dead-end, overcomplicated and unnecessary.

      I largely agree with the discussion on the site you link. A personal 1-seater vehicle weighing under 500kg all-up with the sorts of power discussed there (15kW) is a very feasible design. If everyone had one, it would be great, but I think the mix of existing SUV-sized heavies with these could be a recipe for trouble for the time being.

      I'm working on a design along these lines myself, though the performance focus is on speed and acceleration (i.e. the fun factor) rather than range. With a top speed of 130 kmh, 0-100km time of 5 seconds and a worst-case running time of 1 hour, this translates to a super light (300kg all up) aerodynamic vehicle with 15kW motor and 15kW/hr of LiFePO4 storage. I hadn't considered a hybrid design but your link has got me thinking about it.

    7. Re:Seriously?? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Plus, if you have a magic wand that turns all existing cars into electrics overnight you might either want to try using it on the energy industry as well or call your DM a dick for coming up with such single use item.

    8. Re:Seriously?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the engine to power a speaker that will blast out the engine sound of a 50s chevy.
      problem solved.

    9. Re:Seriously?? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      One step at a time...

      Didn't it have some quite obvious maths that showed that if all cars in the USA were converted to electric, it would require 7,000 GWh of electricity just to charge them every day?

      7,200 billion watt-hours versus 134 billion gallons of gasoline per year, which is equivalent to 12,372 billion watt-hours of energy per day (33,700 watt-hours per gallon!). Not including all the processing, handling and transportation energy which the DOE figures is 83% efficient, so net energy expenditure is closer to 14,900 billion watt-hours daily.

      Velomobiles have several significant drawbacks compared to full sized electric cars: Single person occupancy is the ONLY option, can't carry anything in the way of cargo, not suitable for many people (only able-bodied persons need apply), not suitable for a wide variety of weather and terrain conditions, etc etc... Nice idea but to seriously suggest that everyone should use them is a fucking joke.

      what that velomobiles article didn't also cover is that it's highly unlikely that the world has enough lithium and neodymium to go round to supply all those vehicles.

      There is 29.7 million tons of lithium on reserve (meaning readily extractable with current infrastructure), and the total quantity of lithium on the planet being something like 3 million billion tons (only a fraction is actually accessible, of course). Lithium is about as plentiful as nickel.

      If you need 140 grams of lithium per kWh of battery then today's typical electric car will need 3.4 kg of the stuff, meaning you can make 588 million such cars per million tons. Right now there are only about 600 million cars in the entire world. Advances in technology notwithstanding, roughly 1/30th of our currently available lithium supply will satisfy the entire global automotive market.

      Plus, you can recycle Lithium batteries if you need to - currently not economical, but you can do it.

      As for neodymium and other rare-earths? You dno't actually need those materials to make electric motors. They're very useful at making good, cheap motors - but you can make good, slightly more costly motors without them. If by some happenstance we run out of "rare earth" elements (which are actually about as rare as dirt but economically viable deposits are what's rare) then we'll manage.

      i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be...

      Nothing on your website supports the claim that such a design is required to be successful (if it is, you have hidden it very well). In fact, I'm pretty sure that such a design - while very efficient - has absolutely no market potential to speak of. This is mostly because efficiency and cost are not actually the primary reasons most people buy cars.

      Your shitty Geocities throwback of a site also incorrectly links the Chevy Volt fire to the lithium content. The actual reason for the fire was the battery coolant system was not drained after a crash test, and a week later the concentrated glycol residue from the leaking coolant caused a short. A short which, incidentally, can (and often does) happen in any car's electrical system. Even your proposed design can burst into flames without warning.

      or am i missing something here?

      Facts, mostly... facts and perspective.
      =Smidge=

    10. Re:Seriously?? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Parallel hybrids have excellent potential in heavier vehicles, where lots of power is needed to get them going but relatively little is needed to keep them going. There's also more to recover from regenerative braking. Retrofitting heavy trucks into parallel hybrids is relatively straightforward and has huge fuel savings potential as well.

      =Smidge=

    11. Re:Seriously?? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      I'm still thinking that hybrids will be around a long time, unless either 1) standard quick-change batteries are available at "gas stations" or 2) ultra-quick-charge (75% in 5 minutes or so) are available at "gas stations". Aside from purchase prices, electrics are already pretty good for commuting, but terrible for long trips. Being able to go 500 miles on a single charge is still not enough sometimes.

    12. Re:Seriously?? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Let me add to that... I consider a battery + fuel cell electric still a hybrid. So if suddently fuel cell cars can use methanol cheaply, then I think they'll still have batteries to a) reduce the size of the fuel cell necessary and b) increase the efficiency overall by having a place to store regenerative braking energy.

    13. Re:Seriously?? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The US generates a lot more electric power than that and the transition wouldn't happen overnight. A lot of the generating capacity goes unused during the night (when you could charge your car) because people don't consume as much electric power when they are sleeping. I have heard numbers that you could convert 1/3 of the vehicle fleet to all electric without doing any grid changes whatsoever. More than that and you would require more generating capacity.

    14. Re:Seriously?? by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      OK, the retrofitting angle is a good point. But otherwise, I'm not seeing it. Electric motors give max torque at 0 rpm, just where you need it to get moving. Diesel-Electric series systems have been used for locomotives for 50 years, which suggests that it is a viable approach for heavy vehicles. In fact, such a drive train might even revive the gas-turbine truck, explored in the 1960s, which failed mainly due to the problem of coupling it mechanically to the wheels.

    15. Re:Seriously?? by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how being lighter will make too much difference, since electricity is already at least twice as cheap as gas. Ultra-streamlined? I think the 0-60 in 4 seconds is good enough for anyone ;)

      E=0.5mv^2. If your energy is limited, you can get more v(elocity) by reducing m(ass). The streamlining is not about acceleration, it's about the power needed to push the air aside at a steady speed. That goes as the cube of v, and turns out to be by far the dominant factor once you get up to highway speeds. A reduction by 0.01 in Cd can easily translate into another 20 miles on the range, the difference between making it to the next recharge station or not.

  16. Yeah except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PayPal is a shady corporation that definitely falls on the "evil" side of internet companies. Sadly, that precludes my ever being a fan of his, regardless of his other accomplishments.

    1. Re:Yeah except by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      In that case you'll be happy to know that Musk didn't really start PayPal. He started another company called X.com that eventually took over PayPal.

      But Musk being Musk, he likes to take credit for things he didn't actually do.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Yeah except by davydagger · · Score: 1

      next steve jobs indeed.

      the greatest crime of our generation is our history books are written by mercenaries who will write down whomever will pay for the privledge of deeming themselves worthy, and the real heros and inovators to be left in the dustbin of history.

      I only hope that sites like archive.org will save the mass reactions that people have, so when history is whitewashed, 200 years later people will learn the controversy of these figures, and perhaps have enough information to prompt them to ask questions which will eventually dig and find the truth.

    3. Re:Yeah except by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Confinity, the company that originally wrote PayPal, had the Palm Pilot and similar mobile units as their first target for deploying the software. That's either idiotic or visionary depending on how you look at it; in any case it wasn't going anywhere in 2000. Elon's company X.com was instead focusing on online banking. It's fair to say that the original PayPal business model was crap, and Elon refocusing the service to the web and promoting it was important to it becoming successful. Inventing the business model that turns technology into a useful service is important, and it's fair for him to take credit for that.

    4. Re:Yeah except by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      PayPal is a shady corporation that definitely falls on the "evil" side of internet companies. Sadly, that precludes my ever being a fan of his, regardless of his other accomplishments.

      What is it with the slashdot hatred of PayPal? I use it to buy stuff off eBay, and if I ever sell anything I give PayPal a cut. So fucking what? No one's forcing me to use either eBay or PayPal if I don't want to.

      I always suspect the problems people have with PayPal/eBay are when they try to use them for business purposes while pretending just to be a private seller. Well, if you want to be a business, do it properly.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Oh sure... by Mashiki · · Score: 0

    Is he also ushering in an era of more nuclear power plants to ensure that there's power availability too? Or will people be paying 16c/KWH or higher once these things start banging away on the grid.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Oh sure... by robot256 · · Score: 2

      39% of electric vehicles have solar panels on their home, so they generate their own power (at least on average). And it would take an extraordinarily sudden leap in EV use for off-peak EV charging to be more load than daytime peak usage--both are expected to climb over time, and more capacity is needed regardless of EV adoption. They will just make the load more constant, which is *better* from the power company's perspective.

    2. Re:Oh sure... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Right, let me tell you how this has worked out in this place called Ontario. In a country called Canada, so far it's cost tax payers $20B, for those said solar panels. Because of a FiT program, or Feed in Tariff system. This puts Ontario on track to have the price at 16c/KWH by 2016. And because it's paid at a premium, to offset the cost the actual cost is passed along to consumers on their electric bill. Now let me tell you about Germany where this has also happened. Where the price per KWH is now climbing up towards 14c/KWH on the low side.

      There's happy fun time, then there's reality where solar panels don't work. By the way, speaking of solar panels. Today was the first time in nearly three weeks that there was more than half a day of solid sunlight here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today was the first time in nearly three weeks that there was more than half a day of solid sunlight here.

      I'm no Geographer, but isn't it late Autumn in your hemisphere?

    4. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      And it's not his hemisphere; it's mine!

      E. Musk

    5. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My power company (Dominion in VA) has a special program to charge *lower* rates overnight for charging my Volt. I pay half ( $0.055/kWh ) the normal rate to charge overnight. If the power draw to charge electric cars is such a big concern for utilities, why are they offering me a discounted rate??

      P.S. You could take a moment to admit you know *NOTHING* about the economics of running a power company now

    6. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought solar panels worked on UVs.

    7. Re:Oh sure... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I already pay more than 16c/kWh, but whatever...

      If we just burned all the oil we pump out of the ground to make electricity, the gains in efficiency would reduce demand by something on the order of 10% or so. That's really how bad the gasoline infrastructure and average fuel economy is compared to centralized generation and distribution efficiency, along with charging and utilization efficiency of EVs. Gasoline is fucking horrible in terms of efficiency and the only reason it became so popular is because it's cheap and easy. Or was... not so much as of late, and getting more expensive and harder every day.

      Also, for all the power they use, adding an EV to your home is less demanding than adding an electric water heater or central AC unit. Imagine the logistical nightmare of everyone running out and buying a couple of electric space heaters! On top of that, lots of utilities in California at least are offering rate structures to get users to charge their EVs during off-peak hours when the grid is underutilized anyway. So far so good.
      =Smidge=

    8. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously bitching about 14 and 16 cents per kWh? What an entitled little shit you must be.

    9. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average US price per kWh is $.134, with on most states not having FiT. It's $.204 in the NYC area (Jersey has a FiT but NY state does not).
      http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.htm

      This pricing has little to do with the FiT, which at the penetration % of even NJ adds tens of cents to the common connection charge on an electric bill. If you're of an especially economic bent on these things then you might want to consider the cost of transmission - which is why NYC power is a good 50% higher than power 150 miles to the north - which solar owners reduce (even in the case of net-metering because they peak shave the areas they live in.) But I get the feeling you had your opinion before you had your facts.

      If the solar panels stop working completely it's called an eclipse. Solar continues to work on cloudy days at lower efficiency, same way you can still manage to get a sunburn. Why don't you go outside and try that?

      The non-working solar panels on my house have gotten me through a couple of multiple day power outages so far with no generator (one ice storm, hurricane Irene, and a downed tree.) This system (3.4kW) offsets 80% of my peak electric need. It cost $15k to install myself when panels were $3/watt a few years ago. It shaves $80 off my electric costs. With no gov't subsidies it would pay for itself in about 10 years on a pure cost basis, and in that time the plants around me (one of which I work at) don't have to produce that power. They are guaranteed for 20 years, so that power is essentially free to me for the second half of the system life. The cost of this system as a purely interconnected one with no batteries is down to about $7200 today, payoff time 6 years with no subsidies whatsoever.

      Don't you have somewhere to post where you'll be properly appreciated like Redstate.com? Go have you happy fun time there.

    10. Re:Oh sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take a moment to *suck my dick* , faggot.

    11. Re:Oh sure... by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that solar panels don't work near the poles of the planet, through no fault of either the panels or the regulations. Guess you'll have to build some more nuclear power plants then. But the other posters are right, 14c/KWH is not an unreasonable price for sustainably-produced power. Maybe you're spoiled with low rural rates (or alternatively, non-deregulated electricity markets), but I'm paying 12c/KWH where I live on the USA east coast.

      Admittedly, this applies more to the lower latitudes, but a power company in southern California did a study to see whether paying consumers "retail" for the power they generated (by rolling the meter backwards) was actually fair, or if they were over-paying. After weighing all the factors, the buy-back rate they came up with was actually *more* than the retail rate for electricity. There were so many operational benefits to having distributed generation, like less load on the grid during peak times, less need to build more plants or bring extra capacity online, etc, that it actually made sense to credit the solar owners more per kWh than they were paying the utility. Maybe this won't be the case where you live, and maybe this doesn't take into account all the installation costs, but it sure seems like a smart investment in the long term for a lot of people in the world. (Sorry I couldn't find the link at the moment.)

  18. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Plus, he'll need to screw over all the people who worked with him, so that only he gets rich.

  19. Ashholometer said NO. by epSos-de · · Score: 1

    Elon Musk is not as much an ashhole as Steve Jobs was. One has to be ashholish to be the next Steve Jobs. Elon Musk is a geek who seems to speak positively and less arrogant than the usual bosses. I bet he is demanding, but in a polite way.

  20. badass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I completely agree: "bad" and an "ass".

    I don't think you have to act like a complete jerk toward intelligent and accomplished people to get good results. Jobs and Musk just set a terrible example for everyone else in a leadership position and are probably jointly responsible for more human misery than most people, living or dead. What was/is the real cost of that iPod/iPhone/iPad? What will the cost to the environment be of Musk's electric supercars and rocket ships? And what tiny fraction of humanity will really benefit from them?

    Can someone please find us an accomplished leader somewhere who doesn't act like a complete asshole towards those working for him?

  21. Save the Elons by Megahard · · Score: 2

    The African Elon is an endangered species. Poachers are killing it for its valuable musk, used to power these electric vehicles.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  22. If you want to worship him so much.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you want to worship him so much why don't you start a church and do it there rather then posting this crap to slashdot?

  23. Ain't it funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ain't it funny where money and chutzpah will take you?

  24. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three immediately-visible grammatical errors; 'forget' is one word, 'there' should be 'their' and beginning a sentence with 'And' is considered sloppy in most cases.
    C-
    On this site that's nearly trolling!

  25. Call me when you got a electric SUV by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    in the shape of a Bronco that can do 500mk on a charge on 35" tires and can go off reading.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Call me when you got a electric SUV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me when SUV's with 35" in tires are desired by more than 0.001% of the public. You might want to google "Global Net Exports"

  26. Jobs wasn't a serial entrepreneur by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    At least not in this sense: he stuck with things, not founding things to sell 'em to investors and move on. The first tech company Jobs founded was Apple, and that's the company he died leading.

    1. Re:Jobs wasn't a serial entrepreneur by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly! Elon Musk seems like a really great guy and all, but he does have a tendency to move on to new things before finishing up with the previous thing. The same can't be said of Steve Jobs.

      PayPal was great but they really need to expand more outside of eBay. And also gain the trust of their users. You know you're doing it wrong when people say that you're less trustworthy than the banks!

      Telsa and SpaceX are awesome companies, but both have serious hurdles ahead. His achievements to date don't warrant quite the amount of fawning as what was displayed in TFS. As the Wolf would say, "let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet"!

  27. Does anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why his sedan, albeit much larger, can get so many more miles than the Volt (despite also being heavier by nature)?

    I had the opportunity to buy a Volt, but when I started geeking out on the specs, I just couldn't bring myself to get something with such inferior batteries -- not just because it didn't sit well but I also didn't want to vote with my money toward those 35mile/charge things...

    I mean we're looking at a minimum 7x improvement in range without a 7x improvement in battery volumn and that all after considering the massive weight difference between those vehicles.

    1. Re:Does anyone know... by robot256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Volt battery pack is 40 miles because that's more than 75% of Americans drive on an average day, so GM sized it to keep costs down. I know that's true for me (I've been tracking my daily miles for almost a year now). Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the battery volume is MUCH greater in the top-end Model S than it is in the Volt. The Volt has a 10kWh battery, while the Model S has an 80kWh battery, so the Model S get 250-300 miles on a charge instead of 35-50. The Model S is actually less efficient, possibly thanks to its weight, but has enough capacity to make up for it. Plus, weight isn't as much of an issue for electric cars as gas because regenerative braking recaptures some of that extra kinetic energy when you stop.

      But I'm with you on you decision to not buy a Volt--I don't want my EV to go anywhere near a gas station. That's why I'm waiting for the 2013 LEAF to come out this spring.

    2. Re:Does anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Volt has a 10kWh battery

      Whoa, check your facts.

      wikipedia says 16kWh .
      EPA range of Volt ~40miles

      85 kWh/16 kWh ~ 5.3
      5.3*40miles = 210miles

      Since Tesla model S is larger than the Volt, it's range will be LESS than 210miles.
      I'm not sure who at the EPA got greased by Tesla to cough up a range of 265miles.
      Of course Elon says his penis is 300miles.

    3. Re:Does anyone know... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      16kWh nominal. But to maintain capacity over time, the actual usable capacity is limited. State of charge is kept close to the half-charged state to keep the chemistry happy. The result is a nominal pack capacity of 16kWh, but a usable capacity closer to 10-12 kWh.

      Your math also assumes critical performance metrics - "size" is only one part of the puzzle. There's also efficiency, aerodynamics (related to size), weight, rolling resistance, etc. You can't just assume a simplistic correlation between battery capacity and range like you have... not if you want to be honest anyway.
      =Smidge=

    4. Re:Does anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing I revisited this topic.

      16-2-10 gobbledygook

      So Einstein, what make you think your 16-2-10 theory doesn't apply to the 85-2-53 case of the Tesla?

      aerodynamics (related to size)

      As somebody with obviously more training than you, WTF?

      weight

      Yes, the Tesla is a lot heavier than the Volt.

      rolling resistance

      What about it?

      not if you want to be honest anyway

      I honestly think you're a cocksucking faggot with a tiny penis. Just like Elon.

  28. You forgot: by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They forgot one of the key things - both Tesla and SpaceX depend heavily on government money. He's got more in common with William Boeing than Steve Jobs.

    1. Re:You forgot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tesla depends heavily on government guarantees, not money. Much in the same way that the vast majority of Americans depended on government guarantees when they purchased their first home.

      As for SpaceX, do you seriously think Apple would exist today if it weren't for all the public schools which purchased their equipment?

      Admittedly, any business which makes it without some kind of public subsidy deserves accolades. But we don't live in some Ayn Rand, private, capitalist dystopia/utopia. The "public sector" is large, and it's hard to make it without doing business with it in one way or another. If it were smaller, it may be easier to get funding from private investors (although, in absolute terms funding might be more difficult all around).

    2. Re:You forgot: by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I won't speak for Tesla, but SpaceX does not depend on government money. The Falcon 1 was created entirely with private funding, which includes capital investments to build their entire vertically integrated production facilities (they don't contract anything), some launch facilities, and design, construction, and multiple test flights of an entirely new design of rocket. The Falcon 9 was mostly NASA funding, but it built heavily on the Falcon 1 design, and was thus less expensive to design and test than the Falcon 1 (even without including the huge facilities investments mentioned before). Furthermore, SpaceX already had financing to develop Falcon 9 when they won the NASA contract. The contract allowed them to divert that money into the Dragon Capsule instead, the majority of which is thus privately funded.

      So without government funding, they would be about where they are with Falcon 1/9, but just getting started with Dragon. Government money sped them up a bit, but they aren't even close to being dependent on that funding.

    3. Re:You forgot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough, and I'm not trying disrespect the man, I think what he's doing is pretty cool. That being said, be honest with yourself, the reason they were able to acquire so much private funding (and I'm guessing it's a lot for space rockets) was on the gamble that they could make it back through contracts with the gov't for launches (of which there's also a lot, NOAA, USAF, NASA etc)

      BTW I'm not DerekLyons

    4. Re:You forgot: by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      of course they're dependent on that funding.

      because .. how many clients do they have? gov. is the only client with money to buy their services, so they're like lockheed. lockheed also spent a lot of their money on projects for which the only conceivable client was the government - more specifically the american government.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:You forgot: by shadov · · Score: 2

      A quick look through their launch manifest tells a very different story.

  29. Be ashamed, /.ers by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Reading through the comments on this story makes me sad. 90% of the posts are casting aspersions at Musk, or at the editors for publishing a positive story about a guy trying to build great things. Is he perfect? Of course not, but at least he's out there trying to do Great Things. And not just another platform for mining your personal data to better push ads at you (google, Facebook), but striving for actual advancements for humanity, like electric cars to maybe help save the planet, and then rocket ships to get off of it. Is every idea perfect or without drawbacks? Of course not. But good luck waiting for a perfect solution to replacing the internal combustion engine.

    I'm reminded of my favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote:

    "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

    Can your cynicism. If you don't like the way Musk is building electric cars or space ships, get off your couch and go build your own goddamn spaceship. Oh wait, that would require drive, vision, and effort, and making snide comments on the internet (like I'm doing) is much easier.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Ted Roosevelt spend his entire presidency persecuting overachievers?

    2. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the summary? I threw up in my mouth.

    3. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And not just another platform for mining your personal data to better push ads at you (google, Facebook),

      Don't be so quick with that.

      All Tesla cars come with cellular connectivity and they definitely phone home. i think that it would be naive to believe that Tesla is not looking to monetize as much of your driving information they can their hands on. I'd love to see proof otherwise, but I doubt it is out there given the way of the world nowadays.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading through the comments on this story makes me sad. 90% of the posts are casting aspersions at Musk, or at the editors for publishing a positive story about a guy trying to build great things. Is he perfect? Of course not, but at least he's out there trying to do Great Things. And not just another platform for mining your personal data to better push ads at you (google, Facebook), but striving for actual advancements for humanity, like electric cars to maybe help save the planet, and then rocket ships to get off of it. Is every idea perfect or without drawbacks? Of course not. But good luck waiting for a perfect solution to replacing the internal combustion engine.

      If he doesn't want my criticism, he can stop taking my tax dollars at any time. I, OTOH, would go to jail if I didn't fork over money for Mr. Musk to spend.

    5. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      Not just kissing ass, there was definitely some tongue involved there.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with Elon Musk and everyone here admires what he's doing. The problem is that the media is trying to cast him as some kind of larger than life figure when he's just as human as anyone else. It's a problem that we can ascribe such successes solely to him when he was just a small part on a big machine that acheived those things.

      AKA: Thank you everyone that worked on the tesla and the falcon 9 for advancing what we will do as a species.

      Even though electric cars aren't the solution for everyone, they're a solution for a lot people.

    7. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by pnot · · Score: 1

      I think the reactions are mainly against the OTT fawning tone of the article and summary, spilling over into attacks on the man himself. I mean, I've nothing against Musk, but when I read

      paradigm-shifting industry disruption... not just Steve Jobs but also John D. Rockefeller and Howard Hughes all wrapped in one... genius generalist with “huge steel balls”...

      my gut reaction is oh FUCK OFF. However, I direct that at the writer rather than Musk. Musk could be a Jobs-level asshat for all I know or care -- I'm never likely to meet him -- but I heartily approve of what he's doing.

      (aside to the writer: "all wrapped in one"? Wrapped in one what, cretin? Tarpaulin? XXL muumuu? Soft taco shell?)

    8. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Reading through the comments on this story makes me sad. 90% of the posts are casting aspersions at Musk,"

      And rightfully so, places like Paypal and visa skim (charge others) for being mere middlemen in financial transactions. The idea that they are providing 'a service' is nonsense. The reality is electronic exchange of money should be a public utility so we can get credit card companies and parasites like paypal off the economy.

      Everytime we buy something with a credit card a merchant is being charged a percentage by visa/these middlemen companies. Musk isn't doing the world any favors he's a corporate parasite. Jobs just took advantage of humanities love for aesthetics and general dumbness of the population when it comes to technology.

      Only someone tech illiterate and historically illiterate would write what you wrote.

    9. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Only someone with no understanding of the free market, and therefore human nature would write what you wrote.

      In an ideal world, gosh, yes, it would be great if point-to-point financial transactions occurred seamlessly, with zero overhead for, well, obvious overhead and fraud prevention. But we don't live in a perfect spherical world.

      The percentages visa or paypal charge on transactions pay for the infrastructure to service the transactions, as well as the costs associated with fighting or absorbing fraudulent charges. If you think it can be done better, then by all means, go for it! Elon Musk invented a transaction processing system from nothing, what's stopping you? And I'm sure you'll charge 0% fees on transactions.

      Oh, but wait, yeah, that won't work, because somebody has to get paid for dealing with the hassle of transaction processing. Welcome to the real world.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      places like Paypal and visa skim (charge others) for being mere middlemen in financial transactions. The idea that they are providing 'a service' is nonsense. The reality is electronic exchange of money should be a public utility so we can get credit card companies and parasites like paypal off the economy.

      Look, I'm a socialist and all in favour of nationalising financial institutions but I bet you're not, at least if you're from the US.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Only someone with no understanding of the free market, and therefore human nature would write what you wrote.

      The free market is a small and unimportant part of human nature, unless you're a capitalist.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where the "just" part of his sentence comes in. Sure, it probably mines your driving data for profit, but there's still a lot of good that comes with striving to make an affordable, economically feasible electric car.

    13. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      I'm not cynical. Just trepiditious when an industrialist comes with the name of a Bond villian.

      I mean, RTFA. Nothing is contradicting this theory. The "Valley of Death" phase? his "Huge Steel Balls"?

      Oh, yeah... and the insignificant little factoid that he's BUILDING A GOD-DAMN ROCKET AND TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?

    14. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That doesn't follow. The free market is not part of human nature; human nature fuels the free market. And an understanding of human nature is necessary for any economic system to work, which is why free market systems work and result in high standards of living and the technological marvels we enjoy today, and why collectivist economies are poor, barbaric shit holes. Human nature is that people are basically self-interested, and respond to incentives.

      Free market systems work because one is incentivized to serve others (growing lots of food, making quality clothing, etc) in order to gain rewards (more customers, and more profits). "He who serves best profits most."

      Collectivist systems fail because they require people to act contrary to their self interest in perpetuity. Work harder and better and your reward is more of the products of your labor are taken from you and given to those who did produce as much. So you are not incentivized to serve your neighbor, except through fear of the state.

      Insert standard disclaimers about how the US is now a corporate oligarchy instead of a free market society.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Visa provides a shit ton of services that you may not be aware of. I just got Visa to refund me all my unused nights at a terrible hotel that had a "no refund" policy for prebooked stays. Try that after you paid the hotel with cash and agreed to a no refund policy.

      Merchants benefit a lot from it too. If I go buy a big screen TV on my card, then decide not to pay the bill, well, the store gets paid. It's the bank and Visa who are left to scramble after me.

      I can't say the same of PayPal, which I've heard is liable to freeze people's accounts for sketchy reasons. But whoever started Visa is a saint.

    16. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Look, I'm a socialist and all in favour of nationalising financial institutions but I bet you're not, at least if you're from the US."

      I'm not a free market fuckup like most on slashdot, I'm neither a socialist. I don't subscribe to ideology. I look at the evidence and make a judgement.

    17. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Email me at man-on-pink-corner@ultrafark.com with your PayPal address and a statement summarizing the amount of your Federal and/or state taxes that have been used to subsidize either Tesla or SpaceX over the past five years, or since either company began taking such subsidies, whichever came first. I'll reimburse you.

      (Reply to me here so I'll know to check that email account, as I don't use it very often.)

    18. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      The free market is a small and unimportant part of human nature, one that you have to shoot people to keep them from participating in.

      Fixed it for you, no charge this time, drive through.

    19. Re:Be ashamed, /.ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really never run out of subjects with which to demonstrate your stupidity, do you?

  30. Crony "capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs did not build Apple with hundreds of millions of tax dollars from Obama

    Tesla is subsidized with taxpayer money... has yet to make a real profit

    Space-X is subsidized with taxpayer money... has yet to make a real profit

    Like him or not, Jobs had a fantastic focus... musk seems to choose politically-favored "businesses" and dabbles in them while taxpayer money is being dangled; I'm still waiting to see if he sticks with any of these businesses when there are no tax dollars available, THEN we can consider whether he is worthy of some Steve Jobs comparison...

    1. Re:Crony "capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the Egyptian pyramids, the Roman architecture, the Manhattan Project and the Arc of Triumph were also state-sponsored affairs. Big things that deliver external benefits long after the angel investors are dead sometimes require a little bit of Roosevelt in every John Galt.

      Hell, even little things like chips do. Even those Steve Jobs' Apples run on.

    2. Re:Crony "capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's all well and good, but...

      1. Government did not give money to the president's political contributors so they could build and own the Panama canal and then charge government (the taxpayers) for the use of said canal. President Roosevelt did not give money to his campaign supporters to build and own "the bomb" leaving those contributors as the owners of the bombs, charging the government for access to them, and hiding the details from the government as "proprietary IP". In the crony world, Obama provides Musk with a billion (half to Tesla and half to Space-X) and musk gets to own the results... when NASA wants to use a Falcon to send cargo to ISS, Musk (rather than NASA) owns the rocket and the IP and he decides how much to disclose to NASA and the congress. Musk, having used the taxpayers, then gets to profit by using his taxpayer-enhanced rocket company to sell services to anybody he wants including foreign governments (that's fine in a capitalistic sense, but it would be nice if it was 100% his own and his investors' money). His achievements are lessened by his dependency on the public teet.

      2. Yes, Steve used computer chips whose lineage could be traced back to some government projects, BUT the government never funneled money to Jobs (he just used what was available plus his investors' money). Jobs did not support a politician, then go to that politician for taxpayer money to fund development of the iPod... which he then sold primarily to the government.

      3. Tesla cars are economically destructive; the market cannot currently support them since the tech they require is too expensive relative to the benefit provided (when compared to alternate transportation solutions) therefore Musk not only uses a burst of money from the taxpayer, BUT the target audience is rich people who can afford the eco-friendly status symbol as long as the taxpayer kicks in additional subsidies to buyers. The taxpayer takes a double-hit on the cars... a triple-hit if you consider all the smug eco-friendler-than-thou rhetoric from the jerks who buy and drive these (and to be fair, Fiskers etc). If the Government is going to fund rich guys building eco-friendly high-tech transport let's fund an effort to kickstart Disney-style monorails for our cities and NOT subsidize rich jerks in Teslas and Fiskers...

      There's a HUGE difference... Jobs used what was available in the market plus, his ingenuity and drive, plus his investors' money. Musk, unable to match Jobs, turns to politicians whose palms he has greased, for an additional infusion of cash from the taxpayers. I'm not alleging that Musk is incompetent OR evil... he's taking advantage of the system within the letter of the law (and congrats to him as long as he stays within the dotted lines) but it is unfair to Jobs to elevate Musk to the same level as long as Musk achieves what he does partially on the backs of the taxpayers.

    3. Re:Crony "capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real, this is so much crap.

    4. Re:Crony "capitalist" by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      As I offered to another AC above, please feel free to email me at man-on-pink-corner@ultrafark.com with your PayPal address and a statement summarizing the amount of your Federal and/or state taxes that have been used to subsidize either Tesla or SpaceX over the past five years, or since either company began taking such subsidies, whichever came first. I'll reimburse you.

      (Reply to me here so I'll know to check that email account, as I don't use it very often.)

  31. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Electric cars don't use oil because there are no moving parts

    ... and the gearboxes are lubricated with unicorn tears, while the hydraulic systems use dragon's blood because of the higher boiling point.

  32. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Electric cars don't have oil to change.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  33. Not so much by Konster · · Score: 2

    The tax payers saved Tesla from the brink of oblivion, not Musk. Nearly half a billion dollars, at that.

    Not to mention, the number of cars that Tesla has to sell in order to become profitable is a tall order for any company, not just one selling expensive boutique electrics to a very small niche.

    1. Re:Not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk put more than half a billion into Tesla personally. If you knew anything about the company at all, you'd know it was Daimler that saved Tesla when they needed the money. P.S. The tax payer money is a loan.

      Boutique electrics? Its easily better than a 5 Series BMW or E Class Mercedes, are those "boutique" cars?

  34. Hope he's not the next Steve Jobs by humanrev · · Score: 2

    Unlike Jobs, Elon Musk seems like a nice guy. With any luck he can show how to be a pioneering leader in the technology sphere without having to be a dick at the same time.

    --
    Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    1. Re:Hope he's not the next Steve Jobs by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Someone has to build a cheap electric car people actually want to buy and can afford.

      Currently, it's all a silly game sucking on the tit of government backing and government paying for part of each car.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Hope he's not the next Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not a nice guy. Watch some of those documentaries that follow him home. I think he just divorced his second supermodel wife. Sucks to be his kids. He's not known for being a nice guy at all.

  35. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by norpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hydraulic and transmission oil is changed far less frequently than engine oil.

    Also all-electric cars don't have the same complex tranmissions since electric engines don't have the same narrow power band

  36. This article is from August 2011 by joeflies · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason that we're discussing this now?

    1. Re:This article is from August 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US presidential election campaigning has ended. Time to catch up with everything else from the past two years.

  37. Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hype hype hype hype

    Does Slashdot get paid for AWFUL pieces like this?

  38. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Electric cars don't have oil to change.

    If you want to get really, really technical, there's going to be oil in the transmission gearbox, even if it's a single speed. $200 for changing that oil wouldn't be too bad, because it'd be like 500k mile maintenance.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  39. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by amorsen · · Score: 2

    ... and the gearboxes are lubricated with unicorn tears, while the hydraulic systems use dragon's blood because of the higher boiling point.

    Pure electric cars don't need gearboxes. Hydraulic brakes likely won't go away soon, but electric power steering is rather popular.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  40. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we're using Vice Magazine as a source? Sure, they do some risky stuff, but isn't that one step from citing Hustler for the once in a blue moon article that they are the only one to cover?

  41. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by flibbajobber · · Score: 1

    Pure electric cars don't need gearboxes.

    They don't need multi-speed gear boxes, but may still need a single-speed transmission to change the ratio of motor output RPM to desired axle RPM, and/or offset the shaft axes for mounting/layout reasons. They also still need differentials.

  42. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You don't necessarily need differentials, you can also have one motor per driven wheel.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Call me when you make an EV by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    500 marks! See dick run!

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Can people be just people ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do they have to be compared to others?

    I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.

    Comparing Elon Musk to Jobs or Rockefeller or Hughes is just silly - and in fact, TFA is a totally meaningless article.

    I know Slashdot has fallen, but even I, a long time visitor, hadn't realized that Slashdot has fallen into such a deeeeep abyss that it had to carry useless article that does nothing but sing hosannas and heap praises to Mr. Elon Musk.
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Can people be just people ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have to be compared to others?

      I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.

      Comparing Elon Musk to Jobs or Rockefeller or Hughes is just silly - and in fact, TFA is a totally meaningless article.

      I know Slashdot has fallen, but even I, a long time visitor, hadn't realized that Slashdot has fallen into such a deeeeep abyss that it had to carry useless article that does nothing but sing hosannas and heap praises to Mr. Elon Musk.

      As a long time visitor you should know better than to read the submission beyond the title or let alone TFA. For example by just reading the title I thought this was about some new sort of car scent.

    2. Re:Can people be just people ? by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Funny

      iron man, iron man, does whatever an iron can

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    3. Re:Can people be just people ? by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 1

      "James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron!" - James Cameron (as portrayed on South Park)

      --
      "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
    4. Re:Can people be just people ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Creases pants, jeans and shirts,
      Hold it right, else it hurts.
      Look out, here comes the iron man!

    5. Re:Can people be just people ? by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      Do they have to be compared to others?

      I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.

      It's simply a journalistic method for introducing somebody to a new thing by comparing it to known objects. For example, using an orange as a comparative object when trying to describe what a grapefruit is.

    6. Re:Can people be just people ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have to be compared to others?

      Yes. They are creating investment spin and so must compare Musk to other successful men.

      I mean, Elon Musk is Elon Musk, whatever Elon Musk does, or doesn't do, is his business - as long as it does not interfere with the life of others.

      Yep, it's his business, as in' KA-CHING, baby!'

      Comparing Elon Musk to Jobs or Rockefeller or Hughes is just silly - and in fact, TFA is a totally meaningless article.

      Yes, but now you can't not think of him in those terms.

      I know Slashdot has fallen, but even I, a long time visitor, hadn't realized that Slashdot has fallen into such a deeeeep abyss that it had to carry useless article that does nothing but sing hosannas and heap praises to Mr. Elon Musk.

      You are still missing the point

    7. Re:Can people be just people ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      presses shirts, any size
      creases pants, flattens ties
      look out - here comes the iron man

  45. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just made two errors of your own: your first sentence is a sentence fragment, and you used a semicolon when you should have used a colon. Practice what you preach, haha.

  46. Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    things like "influence on the world"

    Has it occurred to you that some people may not want to have influenced the world in the way Jobs did - I for one, would not like to be the individual responsible for the age of closed platforms and walled gardens we seem to be heading to.

    Regardless, surely Henry Ford would be a better comparison, at least for the "influence on the world".

  47. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.. moving parts? In an electric motor turning wheels? And what the hell are "breaks"?

  48. And unlike Steve Jobs... by spmkk · · Score: 2

    Like Jobs, he saved his beloved baby Tesla Motors from the brink of oblivion.

    And unlike Steve Jobs, he first put it there himself, and only "saved" it by pissing in his investors' and customers' pockets and telling them it was raining.

    ...Which might be forgivable, if he had put himself as far out on a limb as he put them. He didn't; through the process of milking his investors (big and small), he managed to hold on to almost every penny of his personal multi-billion-dollar fortune. And frankly, even THAT could have been forgivable, had he not also leveraged the Department of Energy for an additional $465 million of taxpayer funds.

    Ostensibly this was a loan; realistically, with an anticipated total market of 1 million electric cars by 2015 (the DOE invested in 2009), even if every one of those came from Tesla, it would have to pay almost $500 from the sale of *every car* to pay this "loan" back. Hell, they finally made the FIRST payment on this loan this month after more than 3 years. How? Not from being profitable. Not even from being frugal. From a $200-million influx of investor cash, which investors are only putting up because they know it's all but secured by the US government (having seen how Washington says, "How high?" when Detroit says, "Jump.") -- in other words, if (rather, when) they don't pay that money back, you and I will.

    Screw Elon Musk. I'll happily let the Brits get a head start on private-sector space travel if it means we don't have to reward the fetid values and practices on which Musk builds his vision.

    1. Re:And unlike Steve Jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Branson is being financed with subsidies from US taxpayers. Douchebag.

  49. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    Speaking of screws, the one holding the car together will of course be non-standard and tamper resistant, so that if you get any work done at a non-official repair location you'll lose your warranty. You'll have to take them to the Tesla Virtuoso Station instead.

  50. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    This is actually a much better design for passenger ergonomics, weight distribution, and traction/braking control as well.far more to

  51. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking more along the lines of fleecing the customers for a $100-$200 regular oil change every 3k miles on an electric car... but I'm sitting in my volcano stroking a bleach white cat with bloodshot eyes so...

  52. Good at manufacturing by Animats · · Score: 1

    What's impressive about Musk is that he's good at running manufacturing. Space-X designs and builds rockets and spacecraft in their own plants with their own employees. Same for Tesla. That's what impressed Automobile Magazine. The Tesla roadster was, in their opinion, just a Lotus Elise with an electric power plant. But the Tesla sedan is an all-new design and a well-executed one.

    Apple is a design house and a marketing operation. The manufacturing is done by low-wage workers at Hon Hai Precision Industries in Shenzhen. Apple used to be a manufacturer, but they had trouble running plants efficiently and gave up.

  53. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's rarely worth replying to ACs, but here goes...

    The Tesla Roadster needs the gearbox oil changed at every service. It's right there in the workshop manual.

    The Nissan Leaf needs its gearbox oil changed every service interval. Again, right there in the service manual.

    I'm sure all the other electric cars on the market are the same, but I'm just going by the manuals I have to hand.

  54. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by hpoul · · Score: 1

    what? you can change the oil? nobody does that, ever! make sure the oil is a closed system which can never be accessed in any way, makes it so much more efficient and consumes less space! - if the oil gets old and clogged, just buy a new car!

    --
    Find me at http://herbert.poul.at
  55. Elon Musk by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Someone with a name like that, is bound to be awesome!

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  56. Wake me up... by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

    ...when I'll can pay online my ticket for the electric spaceship that will bring me to Mars.

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
  57. Really? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "Like Jobs, he saved his beloved baby Tesla Motors from the brink of oblivion"

    Really? It seems to me that the company is on as shaky ground today, just as much as in the past. Its continued survival appears to depend on cash infusions.

    Nothing wrong with that, but it does not seem to me that the company is fully booted, and this statement is just a little too rah-rah.

  58. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "there" - LOL.

    And previous poster "mabey"... LOL indeed!

  59. "paradigm-shifting industry disruption" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I don't know out of Elon Musk and the submitter who's the biggest twat.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  60. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

    This is less 'haha that's funny' than 'haha that's so true' than many would like to believe.

  61. Unlike Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who didn't have to rely on a bailout from taxpayers to save his company

  62. Completely Irrelevant by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Making electric vehicles out of reach of most people is not game changing or paradigm shifting. I don't really need to spend $80k+ to save the world, or at least I shouldn't have to.

    Jobs designed products that are a stretch but at least not out of reach of the average consumer. Telsa makes flamboyant overpriced status symbols for the 1%..

    Also hoarding technology the way Apple does is not going to change an industry, its doing to destroy it. If Telsa doesn't share and license its technology to companies that actually want to make relevant products for the everyday person then they will make the same mistake that seemingly is starting to drag Apple down today.

    If Elon wants to be taken seriously create an everyday car that people will line up to want to buy otherwise he may as well start a company making flying space cars for the complete lack impact he has on the industry and environment.

    Telsa (and Elon) is completely irrelevant until they create something that everybody not only wants, but can actually obtain.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  63. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

    The Nissan Leaf needs its gearbox oil changed every service interval. Again, right there in the service manual.

    Really? What page? 'cause I got both the 2011 OEM manual and owner's service manual here and I can't find any reference to changing the gearbox oil as part of routine maintenance. Inspect, sure, but not change.

    Can't speak for the Tesla Roadster but I'm willing to bet it's the same story. Electric cars need their gearbox oil changed as often as any rear-wheel-drive car needs the oil in the rear differential changed... which is essentially "never" except in a case of catastrophic failure.
    =Smidge=

  64. What a bad ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is such a damn bad ass! He took nearly a half billion in government funding + millions more from other investors and turned it into a company that makes a product virtually no one knows anything about! This man is totally Tony Stark!

  65. A major issue was just shown... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A major issue with electric vehicles was just made apparent. As you all, I'm sure, know, the northeast U.S. was hit with a hurricane last week. Millions were without power, and hundreds of thousands still are. Even with the gas shortage that occurred afterwards, these people were ultimately able to drive their vehicles and get to where they needed to go, though sometimes that meant waiting for 2 or 3 hours on a gas line.

    If these people had electric vehicles, they'd be dead in the water. No way to charge them, therefore, no way to drive them.

    Until the power infrastructure is more stable and reliable, electric vehicles, despite their other advantages, will have this major shortcoming.

  66. Falcon Heavy price list (interesting)Re:You forgot by Fubari · · Score: 1
    This was interesting: falcon_heavy (pricing at bottom of page):

    Pricing

    SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing for its launch services. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases.

    PAYLOAD PRICE
    Up to 6.4 ton to GTO $83M*
    Greater than 6.4 ton to GTO $128M*

    *Paid in full standard launch prices for 2012. Please contact us for details at sales@spacex.com

    btw, GTO = Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit

  67. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Hydraulic brakes likely won't go away soon

    They will in electric cars. Friction brakes are wasteful. If each wheel has its own motor/generator you have regenerative braking, where the kinetic force of the car is transformed into electricty and fed back to the battery, rather than being transformed to heat which is wasted.

  68. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by Orionar · · Score: 1

    It's rarely worth replying to ACs, but here goes...

    The Tesla Roadster needs the gearbox oil changed at every service. It's right there in the workshop manual.

    The Nissan Leaf needs its gearbox oil changed every service interval. Again, right there in the service manual.

    I'm sure all the other electric cars on the market are the same, but I'm just going by the manuals I have to hand.

    I own a LEAF. You don't know what you're talking about.

  69. Re:don't for get the $200 oil change at there deal by amorsen · · Score: 1

    Yes sure, you will do regenerative braking when you can. But you still need an emergency system, and the current hydraulic brakes work quite well. Most electric cars cannot apply 1g of deceleration from full speed using just the regenerative brakes, so they cannot do without . I doubt there are any production electric cars which can do that.

    Brake pads should live a long time...

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  70. Your sig by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote

    It is not "freedom of worship", it is "freedom of religion".

    "Freedom of worship" is what you have in Iran. Freedom of religion is what is recognized as a Universal Human Right.

    Article 18.
            Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    1. Re:Your sig by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Say that to Robert Jackson

      The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Your sig by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Say that to Robert Jackson

      I honestly do not know him. Wikipedia does not help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jackson

      The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

      Makes sense.

      One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

      Why do you still use the very limited concept of "freedom of worship"? Freedom of religion goes much farther then "freedom of worship". Freedom of religion means freedom of worship, _plus_ the right to express one's religious ideas in public, to proselitize, to change religion, to act according to one's religion/conscience (such as allowing conscientious objectors to refuse to kill, and allowing pro-life doctors to refuse to cooperate with abortion) as long as it does not gravely harm the common good (child sacrifices, honor killings, stonings, etc.).

      The 1st Amendment says "free exercise of religion". Those modern politicians who promote the concept of "freedom of worship" are atempting to deconstruct the religious liberty protected by the 1st amendment. This is extremely dangerous and evil.

    3. Re:Your sig by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That's not me saying it, that's Robert H. Jackson - US Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials and the quote is from one of his cases in the mid-40's. So the "modern" politicians have been around for nearly 100 years.

      Sorry for not appropriating the quote correctly.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Your sig by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      That's not me saying it, that's Robert H. Jackson - US Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials and the quote is from one of his cases in the mid-40's. So the "modern" politicians have been around for nearly 100 years.

      Or maybe he used the expression in a different sense than that of modern aggressive secularist politicians.

  71. Not Steve Jobs by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs was a seriously overrated salesman.
    If you want to admire computer people, then admire people who advanced the state of the art, such as John Bardeen/William Shockley/Walter Houser Brattain, John von Neumann, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, Edsger W. Dijkstra, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie. Maybe Linus Torvalds.