Slashdot Mirror


CNN Skeptical of Elon Musk's 'Big Promises' (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Tesla's electric semi-truck will be launched three weeks later than planned, CNN reports. It's been bumped to November 16th because Tesla says it's "diverting resources" to address problems with its Model 3 sedan production -- they've produced just 17.3% of the cars they'd planned -- and to make more batteries to send to areas hit by hurricanes. CNN notes Tesla's Model X "didn't start shipping until two years after it was supposed to roll out," and production of its Model S sedan "was also much slower than originally promised." Michelle Krebs, an analyst with Autotrader.com, complains Tesla "may well have far too much on its plate. It should focus and deliver on some key promises."

But Elon Musk "has a history of some pretty pie-in-the-sky promises," complained CNN business anchor Maggie Lake, citing Musk's claim that he had verbal approval for an underground hyperloop connecting New York City to Washington D.C. ("This is news to City Hall," said New York's press secretary at the time, and no actual approval has ever been produced.) Lake also noted Musk's promise to fix South Australia's blackout problems by building the world's largest lithium-ion battery within 100 days back in March. Last Friday Tesla signed a contract to begin the work, so the 100-day countdown has begun.

CNN's report ran under the headline "Elon Musk: Big Dreamer or Monorail Salesman?" -- referencing a satirical 1993 episode of The Simpson's. "Here's a spoiler alert," the segment concludes. "If you haven't seen that episode...the monorail plan doesn't work out too well. Let's put it that way."

206 comments

  1. Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am wondering why anyone and at Slashdot especially, would take CNN any serious. Why? These are folks who spread f*k* news I know.

    1. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Megol · · Score: 0

      Spread fuck news you know?

      To be relevant to this maybe you could compare Musks claims with CNNs news and provide some proof they are less trustworthy in general? I couldn't be bothered but you seem to be very knowledgeable in the area...

    2. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by mschuyler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. They are husband and wife.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    3. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, somebody's upset that CNN broke the story about how his life was so empty and pathetic that it qualified as a disability.

    4. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by leonbev · · Score: 0

      The gap seems to be narrowing over the years, but CNN's news claims tend to be a wee bit more accurate than that crap that comes out of Elon Musk's hype machine.

      But, hey... I'd love to be wrong. Maybe I'll actually be able to book a ticket on that manned Mars rocket he said was going to launch in 2024, but I highly doubt it. Maybe he should focus on getting more Model 3's out the door, considering that people actually put down a deposit on those.

    5. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be relevant to this maybe you could compare Musks claims with CNNs news and provide some proof they are less trustworthy in general?

      If people followed and but their cash on CNN and its claims prior to the election, they'd have lost big time.

      Anyway, I digress....but these are some of the outrageous things they've said in the recent past. Remember, they claim to be, "The most trusted name in News."

      1: They on June 6th reported that Comey was going to contradict President Trumpâ(TM)s claim that he wasnâ(TM)t under FBI investigation in his Senate testimony, a report which obviously was going to make Trump look like a liar. They had to retract these claims.

      2: CNN.com Headline: From early May, âoeRape and domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions.â CNN argued that the American Health Care Act (AHCA) could make sexual assault a pre-existing condition, preventing women who survive rape from getting health care.

      3: Claim reported as something worth listening to, while referring to WikiLeaks: "Remember, itâ(TM)s illegal to possess these stolen documents. Itâ(TM)s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, youâ(TM)re learning from us,â Cuomo said on television.

      Need more? I have 11 crazy ones for you...

    6. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      These are folks who spread f*k* news I know.

      You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by davester666 · · Score: 0

      Sure, but they are also brother and sister.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'I am wondering why anyone and at Slashdot especially, would take CNN any serious. Why?'

      Well, their main competitor is Fox News.... As bad as CNN can be, Fox is just complete theatrical shit..

      And in comparison to many other mainstream news outlets, they are pretty decent, despite their known faults, Breitbart is the National Inquirer of the right and completely bs, with low standards of editorial control, with directives that act as a propaganda machine, even their editors are cowards. MSNBC has gotten better but are still 'eh', and Williams is not a good addition. People don't trust CBS, whether mainstream or because of their Sinclair like associations Fox is utter crap despite shoring up good journalists and, frankly, Murdoch is an ass. CNBC has their head up their ass and dropped off in their credibility. Bloomberg is pretty good at times but largely business. BBC and BBC America are decent but obviously UK and EU centric. Sputnik is, well, a joke. The rest of the alt-right and white nationalist stuff is, well, clown.

      WSJ has sold out completely and is documented as such. WP is okay. NYT is rather impressive but not always goes into enough depth and some of their opinion pages should move into more magazine style lengths. I liked Monocle but that's a different bent.

      Politico is good. Drudge and the ilk is shit.

      So you can stand claim how bad CNN is, but unless there is a real alternative, it's still a top news program that is credible enough.

    9. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing wrong with Musks predictions is that he sometimes delivers late.

    10. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      They both like to do fake theatrical junk.

    11. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by slacktide · · Score: 1

      It's difficult to translate a colloquial Russian phrase to English.

    12. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are also the 3 main Western news agencies, AFP, AP and Reuters.

    13. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound like you have the literacy level appropriate for a coloring book...

    14. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      "The only thing wrong with Musks predictions is that he sometimes delivers late."

      I don't think you have been reading the same hype shit.
      there's quite a bit more wrong with them.

      anyways.. who the fuck cares about for example him sending batteries to areas hit by the hurricane when what they ACTUALLY WANT is GASOLINE and aggregators. you know, because they contain electricity for a fuck ton lot more of time than elons batteries AND they're cheaper.

      nobody gives a fuck. it's just shadytalk to cover up for that he again has failed to produce his products at a profitable selling price.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I'd have a different list than you I was taking you seriously until you described Drudge as shit.

      Have you ever even looked at his page?

      He almost never reports ANYTHING. He's a link aggregator from a very long list of journalists, opinion writers, and various very mainstream media source including every single one you like.

      In short, you were doing ok and allllllmost made but blew it near the end when you revealed that you're just another /. Idiot.

    16. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are right? You may be too impressed with the emperor's new clothes to notice that they don't exist, but it's very obvious to people who are fooled a little bit less easily that Elon Musk's empire is a giant scam.

    17. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You do know that SpaceX and Tesla are two different companies, right? It's not like he's taken guys off the Model 3 production line and has them designing heavy lift rocket engines. Similarly, I doubt that Musk is turning wrenches on the assembly line himself, and production slows down when he has to do a speech / press event or tweet something.

      The thought that this might be a hit piece because CNN is fearing competition in the business of spreading bullshit is funny though.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    18. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thousands of people with Tesla cars that get driven every day, and the rocket flights that deliver satellites and supplies to the ISS would say that it is not a "scam."

      Scams don't actually produce anything - they just "reappropriate" assets through fraudulent means. Tesla and SpaceX actually do produce products that work, and customers are happy with.

    19. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Ksevio · · Score: 0

      So they posted stuff that was inaccurate at the time, and then retracted the claim? Sounds like the responsible thing to do after making a mistake. What news organizations do you trust more?

    20. Re: Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sentences in English are normally capitalised, professor.

    21. Re:Why would anyone take CNN seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol go MORE basic even with CNN

      BREAKING news on the screen for HOURS to 24/7 and all their coverage of said BREAKING event amounts to less than 30 minutes of coverage which turns out to be inaccurate or outright false in the final analysis of the event. They use another phrase but I can not remember what it is -as my employer never had it on its TVs which my previous one did.

  2. Guess they are not big into the whole news thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other wise they might have known - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/30/elon-musks-big-battery-for-south-australia-already-half-complete

  3. Heresy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Heresy, pure heresy.

    Everyone knows CNN is fake news anyway, so no story here.

  4. I thought this was "news", that's not "news" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk delivers late. Often. Anyone who followed his work knows that.
    The thing is that he does deliver eventually and it's often spectacular enough that it's fine that he gets away with the other crap.

    Comparing him to the monorail guy is stupid, he delivers great stuff. In Australia he's already halfway thru and I'm 100% he'll make the deadline because he'll lose 50M if he doesn't. The other things he's trying to do will be delayed because that's the way things work there.

    1. Re:I thought this was "news", that's not "news" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk delivers late. Often. Anyone who followed his work knows that.

      Unlike pretty much every company ever, right? Late delivery on promises is so common in most industries that meeting deadlines is suspicious (consider the video game industry, which often delivers completely broken products that are fixed by patches later and are probably not even on time to begin with).

    2. Re: I thought this was "news", that's not "news" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regard to the model 3, he is delivering early on his promise of late 2017 delivery. He successfully hit the revised deadline of July. I have seen three model 3 cars on the road already in SF. The long term goal is to deliver 500k car per year by 2020. He has three years to get there assuming that the 500,000th car will be delivered by the last day of 2020. Keep in mind Tesla is making 105,000 cars per year now.

      As for the Australian battery, he is ahead of schedule and will finish within 100 days of signing the contract. The contract date is all that matters because that is the date that Australia promised to pay him. Anything before that was not formally defined. If Australia wanted a free battery, maybe they should have hammered out the terms faster but it appears that it takes a little bit of time and planning to lay down a 100 megawatt hour battery.

      Video of his presentation where he reveals the now half finished battery:

      http://youtu.be/gcve0T7Gx38

  5. Elon is good at raising capital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story doesn't fit the fashionable narrative that smart democrat billionaires from the West coast will save the world, fix global warming, and stop evil. I'm surprised to see anything so candid coming from AOL/Time/Warner/CNN. There must be a reason.

    Not to slight his accomplishments, but I note that Mr. Musk is really good at managing his brands, and he uses that to raise capital. This story can't be good for him.

  6. In related news ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    But Elon Musk "has a history of some pretty pie-in-the-sky promises,"...

    Elon Musk announced that SpaceX is developing a direct-to-home pie delivery service.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  7. Reality distortion fields by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a tricky one. Do I believe the huckster with the reality distortion field that would put Steve Jobs to shame or the "news" channel where the reporters are all still pissed that Donald Trump ruined their awesome "SHE DID IT!" party back in November?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Reality distortion fields by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Musk's last update on when the self diving capability of Tesla cars week be delivered was the end of the year. Recently he said SpaceX would land people on Mars in 5 years.

      He's optimistic, you have to give him that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Reality distortion fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am a leftie. I hate Donald Trump, the man is a disaster for America. I used to trust CNN, I really did.
      But whenever I turn on CNN now, it is bleating about some silly shite he has said or done and not about real, actual news.
      WE KNOW he's an idiot, WE KNOW Clinton forgot that men have 50% of the vote, GET OVER IT !

      But Elon Musk makes good stuff and just talks up his businesses a bit. As you would expect.

      Musk 1, CNN 0.

    3. Re:Reality distortion fields by gravewax · · Score: 2

      There is optimism then there is straight out bullshit. Elon despite all his achievements favours the later when he is spruiking his plans, it is a shame really as the truth is just as interesting in most of these situations.

    4. Re: Reality distortion fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up (more)

      I'm a centrist am unsure Hillary vs Trump (voted for Obama twice, but couldn't do either crooked Hillary or buffoon Trump)

      But CNN has lost its way. I've worked for public companies , and the crap that CNN is lying about , and, hate to say it , fake news ... are signs of a company adrift, rudderless.

      So CNN vs musk? Musk is creating. I guess CNN is creating, but they're creating bs. I mean, the dude took on Boeing and Lockheed and crushed them. Flat. We'll be talking about the space x monopoly in 5 years. And, in a decade, when fast chargers are everywhere, we'll look at Tesla as the folks who started it.

    5. Re:Reality distortion fields by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Musk's last update on when the self diving capability of Tesla cars week be delivered was the end of the year.

      Teslas already have excellent self-diving capability; just point them towards the edge of the cliff and place a brick on the accelerator pedal.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Reality distortion fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this modded insightful? What does men having a vote have to do with Elon Musk being a pathological liar?

    7. Re:Reality distortion fields by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Recently he said SpaceX would land people on Mars in 5 years. He's optimistic, you have to give him that.

      To be fair, he did not specify whether these people had be alive or not when they landed.

    8. Re:Reality distortion fields by eepok · · Score: 1

      Ya, that's my problem with this particular post. There are many more reputable organizations/people that don't trust Musk's promises. Showing that CNN has doubt in Musk sounds like an association fallacy. "CNN has lost much of its credibility. CNN doubts Musk. You doubt Musk. Thus, you have lost credibility."

  8. There's three sides by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Musk cheerleaders, Musk naysayers, and the truth.

    The way I see it, Musk is a bit of a 'showman' and in that role has a tenuous connection to the truth... but he did deliver a tail-landing rocket and he did deliver electric cars when the naysayers were calling him a liar for even saying it was possible.

    So I tend to look at what Musk promises, not when.

    1. Re:There's three sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who said tail landing a rock was impossible? I keep hearing this claim, back it up.

    2. Re:There's three sides by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I try not to be a naysayer in regards to Musk, but his adventures tend to take a lot longer than intended and a bit oversold to the public ... now I see a lot of pots on the fire.

      There's nothing indicating that all this is going to go wrong, but there's no evidence that the company has learned a whole lot about how large complex device manufacturing works either, hence, skeptical

    3. Re:There's three sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naysayers denying the possibility of something that hasn't been done before is not an extraordinary claim. Your assertion that the OP to "back it up" is rubbish. Sure, you might say the burden of proof is on the claimant, but this is clearly ridiculous since the OP was not making an unrealistic or unbelievable claim.

      I also have to question your genuineness because you said "I keep hearing this claim", but have done nothing to validate it for yourself? You are either really lazy, or you just enjoy telling people to "back up it up" because you want to seem intellectual.

      It took less than a minute to find the following:

      The Motley Fool
      Headline: SpaceX Does the Impossible. Again.
      Source: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/16/spacex-does-the-impossible-again.aspx

      Huffington Post
      Quote: "On Friday, SpaceX successfully delivered a cargo ship, carrying an experimental, balloon-like habitat, to the International Space Station and pulled off a nearly impossible at-sea landing of its rocket booster."
      Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spacex-cargo-resupply_us_570497ece4b0537661881c8b

      Gizmodo
      Quote: "Why not try something new and seemingly impossible? Well until today’s successful landing, every rocket that SpaceX sent plummeting towards the drone ship either tipped, exploded, or just narrowly missed making the landing."
      Source: https://gizmodo.com/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-just-made-the-first-ocean-barge-1769942283

      Hacker News
      Comment: "I had a colleague of mine (who works on rockets/spaceflight, has done so for decades) say the barge landing was impossible."
      Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886262

      Clearly, this is a sentiment that has been expressed.

    4. Re:There's three sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those "citations" are second-hand or congratulatory.

      Clearly, the sentiment that musk critics expressing were claimed to have expressed is either non-existent or nearly so.

      I just hope nobody wastes their time reading that drivel from someone that doesn't know how html tags work.

    5. Re:There's three sides by houghi · · Score: 1

      3 weeks delay is not really an issue. If all promisses by every company only would be 3 weeks late, that would be wonderful.
      Can you imagine that you are only 3 weeks late with every project you are involved in? (Yes, I know it wasn't your fault.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:There's three sides by eepok · · Score: 1

      People may call me a naysayer, but I consider myself a "less-sayer".

      Yes, I knew Musk would produce an EV. But I also knew it wouldn't be affordable to the masses or supportable by the sales of the Roadster.

      Yes, I know Musk will produce a Model 3 (a more affordable EV), but I've been saying all along that it (1) won't feel like the Model S, (2) he can't do it with Tesla's own income, and (3) he won't meet his production goals.

      Yes, I knew Musk could potentially produce a reusable rocket, but I knew in 2005 when he first got the contract from the Air Force to do so, I knew the tech was way WAY off.

      Sure, I know that SolarCity will produce photovoltaic roof tiles that look nice, but I KNOW that getting one of those solar roofs will not cost the same as replacing a shingle roof. There's special math in that claim that requires major subsidies and increasing the cost of a relatively cheap roof by tacking on 30 years of interest when no one would take a 30-year loan on a $8,000-- especially when it will need to be replaced again before the loan is up.

      The one thing I'm fairly certain will never happen is the Hyperloop. It's a pipe dream no doubt.

      I'm fairly certain that Tesla has a level 3 autonomous vehicle... but I'm almost certain they won't sell a mass-produced level 4/5 for at least 6 more years. Bare minimum.

      Musk is a hype man. Remove the hype and consider the tech. Is the tech available now or will Tesla/SpaceX/SolarCity have to develop it? What's the current price in the tech. If Musk doesn't have a bunch of magical fairies slaving away somewhere, to what extent can his promises be trusted?

      Musk romances futurists-- people that want to **believe** that the future will be saved by technology and that a few special visionary messiahs will lead the way. They don't want to accept that progress is slow, tough, and incremental. They'd prefer that a technomagical convergence is just around the corner and Musk will bring it. That's concerning.

    7. Re:There's three sides by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      So I tend to look at what Musk promises, not when.

      Musk puts new meaning to the idiom, "better late than never."

      Sure, most of his projects are behind schedule, but many people regard them as impossible in the first place.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:There's three sides by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Musk likes to throw rocks in the pond. But he's also smart (and rich) enough to get a bunch of smart people together to actually make things happen.

      If he only delivers half of what he promises, a benchmark he's been exceeding so far, then it's a good thing. Progress in the world has settled into navel gazing app development. Someone needs to come along and start challenging thinking on the big things.

    9. Re:There's three sides by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The one thing I'm fairly certain will never happen is the Hyperloop. It's a pipe dream no doubt.

      Pipe dream - haha.

    10. Re:There's three sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naysayers denying the possibility of something that hasn't been done before is not an extraordinary claim. Your assertion that the OP to "back it up" is rubbish. Sure, you might say the burden of proof is on the claimant, but this is clearly ridiculous since the OP was not making an unrealistic or unbelievable claim.

      I also have to question your genuineness because you said "I keep hearing this claim", but have done nothing to validate it for yourself? You are either really lazy, or you just enjoy telling people to "back up it up" because you want to seem intellectual.

      It took less than a minute to find the following:

      The Motley Fool
      Headline: SpaceX Does the Impossible. Again.
      Source: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/16/spacex-does-the-impossible-again.aspx

      Huffington Post
      Quote: "On Friday, SpaceX successfully delivered a cargo ship, carrying an experimental, balloon-like habitat, to the International Space Station and pulled off a nearly impossible at-sea landing of its rocket booster."
      Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/spacex-cargo-resupply_us_570497ece4b0537661881c8b

      Gizmodo
      Quote: "Why not try something new and seemingly impossible? Well until today’s successful landing, every rocket that SpaceX sent plummeting towards the drone ship either tipped, exploded, or just narrowly missed making the landing."
      Source: https://gizmodo.com/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-just-made-the-first-ocean-barge-1769942283

      Hacker News
      Comment: "I had a colleague of mine (who works on rockets/spaceflight, has done so for decades) say the barge landing was impossible."
      Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13886262

      Clearly, this is a sentiment that has been expressed.

      Just as I thought, nobody really said publicly it was impossible. One link does have a guy saying a couple of his buddies didn't think it could be done, but the rest of the links just make that same claim with no reference to who said it. Its complete bullshit. None of the critics of Elon Musk's BS hype ever said it was impossible either.

      So I suppose we'll keep hearing this false argument, probably even from you despite knowing it was never something that was argued.

  9. Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates) or other benefits like Leaf's free charging. Though Elon Musk, as of 2015 had benefited from almost $5B in Gov't subsidies.

    I see people driving $100k Teslas, and they're not doing it to be green. It's the new status symbol of wealth (used to be BMW/Benz).

    1. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Boo hoo, infrastructure for electric cars is getting funded with help from the public. In the end we will all benefit from it with cleaner transportation infrastructure.

    2. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except the people living near the new electicity generating plants that will have to be built.

    3. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I see people driving $100k Teslas, and they're not doing it to be green. It's the new status symbol of wealth (used to be BMW/Benz).

      For the middle class, sure. The upper class sneers at a $100k car.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by steveha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates)

      Our tax policy includes rebates and incentives to encourage people to do things. For example, giving to charity.

      Policy makers were hoping people would do things like switch to driving electric cars. They set up the tax rebates accordingly.

      Tesla customers getting a tax rebate on Tesla electric cars? That's the system working as intended. The government wanted to encourage the switch to electric cars, and it's working.

      Note that the incentives are really just accelerating a process that would have happened on its own. If BEVs were significantly less expensive than ICE vehicles, people would choose to buy them even without tax incentives. The tax incentives are intended to jump-start this, and help BEVs get over the initial hump.

      Selling lots of cars helps enable economies of scale; economies of scale help cars cost less; cars costing less helps sell more cars. It's hard to get the cycle going when your initial low-quantity sales are expensive cars.

      Also note that when government picks winners and losers, government tends to do a stupid job. Consider the Obama administration loans to Solyndra... a total debacle. But if government is going to interfere with the free market, IMHO the BEV tax credit is one of the best things they could do. Customers are still spending their own money, so they won't be buying lousy cars even with the BEV tax credit; it should help good products get established with little risk of Solyndra-style debacles. And in the specific case of Tesla I think it's clear that it worked out well.

      or other benefits like Leaf's free charging.

      Nissan provided that to encourage customers to buy their brand of BEV. Nothing wrong with that.

      I see people driving $100k Teslas, and they're not doing it to be green. It's the new status symbol of wealth (used to be BMW/Benz).

      It's true that Tesla has grabbed most of the "large luxury car" sales in markets where they are competing. However I don't think that it is just, or mostly, that rich people want to show off their wealth. Tesla makes cars that are safe, reliable, and fun to drive; and for rich people the cost doesn't seem too high, so why not buy one?

      Plus I've read a lot of discussion of Teslas online, and I've repeatedly seen comments like "Well, I think the Tesla interiors are cheap. My BMWs and Mercedes are much nicer, let alone my Bentley. I sold the Tesla and bought a Jaguar." (I just made that up but it's similar to real things I have read.) It sure doesn't seem to me like really rich people think a Tesla is a mark of status.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    5. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Though Elon Musk, as of 2015 had benefited from almost $5B in Gov't subsidies.'

      Given that covers solar panels, his space company, and motors, that's pretty small, moreso when you realize it's spread out over the years the companies have been in business and much of the money goes back to consumers who make the decision to buy the products, not the government.

      Keep in mind that the US of late imports over $250 billion of foreign oil a year, every year, at least. We depended on foreign rocket motors for national defense interests instead of keeping and using our own. And 4 hurricanes just occurred 12 figures of damage in under 3 months.

      If you are pro US and on the left, keep in mind, this is a US grown company expanding outward. This is a good thing for US invention, jobs, and security. If you are anti-US and on the right, you might want to look at the transcontinental railroad, the current oil companies, and the defense industry particularly a couple certain fighter projects as the real models for corruption and waste--the F35 project is well over $180billion in waste, roughly 10% of the entire program and they're not even halfway through procurement.

      $5 billion? That's piddling. The bailouts of 2007 and 2008 laugh at it. And if farmers can get federal and state subsidizes for their crops and equipment, and political leaders with 9 figure tax losses and writeoffs, or file for multiple bankruptcies, $5 billion for 3 industries seems almost efficient. If you say the rich and the businessmen are smart for taking their deductions and writeoffs, I don't see why that argument doesn't apply to a company besides on subsidies largely driven by consumer choices of what said company puts into the marketplace.

    6. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates) or other benefits like Leaf's free charging.

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving ICE cars if they had to pay to remove the CO2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving ICE cars if they had to pay to remove the CO2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere.

      Every single person that needs to drive in order to make a living.

      If your the 1% then it's just pocket change. If your the 99% it's unaffordable. That's pretty fucked up.

    8. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      I didn't make enough money to get most of the subsidy for my Volt, and it worked out to only a few percent of the price, making it still expensive. But worth it, been trouble free since late 2011.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    9. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by I75BJC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Today? No change in USA numbers. Where's the production of Electric Cars that could supply the need? When will the cost of Electric Cars reach the cost of Used cars in the USA? Where's the range to permit the driving range of an ICE Used car? When's the cost of a battery recharge going to match the cost of an ICE Used car's fillup? When are electric charging stations going to be able to handle the numbers and flows of ICE Used cars. Where are all the petro fueled electric plants necessary for electric cars going to be built? When are necessary electric plants going to be built? "Rome wasn't built in a day" but so many people seem to think a switch to Electric/Renewable/Magical can be accomplished by the end of the year. It will take decades -- just like the ICE cars displacing the animal drawn "cars" and "trucks" of the past.

    10. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I'll stick with my 335i. Not because it is a status symbol, but because it is consistently fun.

      Teslas are indeed fast, for the first minute or so of a fresh charge.........

      http://www.thedrive.com/news/5...

    11. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      You almost sound like a little kid carrying on about his sports hero.

      Really disappointing.

    12. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Really disappointing.

      You're disappointed because I explained reality? Get ready for a lot more disappointment in your life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also note that when government picks winners and losers, government tends to do a stupid job. Consider the Obama administration loans to Solyndra... a total debacle."

      Except that Solyndra wasn't a case of the government picking winners and losers. Solyndra was only one of many companies to use that program, and the vast majority were successful. The program was intended to stimulate the industry as a whole, and it did exactly that, while actually turning a profit - even considering the not-insignificant losses incurred by lending to Solyndra.

    14. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering or looking at the subsidies for electric vehicles is not much use if you aren't also comparing it to the subsidies for internal combustion engine vehicles.

    15. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates) or other benefits like Leaf's free charging.

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving ICE cars if they had to pay to remove the CO2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere.

      I would say currently about 70.9% of new sales. That is the case in Norway so far with heavy taxes on ICE cars and no taxes on electric.

    16. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by blindseer · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates) or other benefits like Leaf's free charging.

      I've always wondered how many people would be driving ICE cars if they had to pay to remove the CO2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere.

      People are effectively paying for the CO2 emitted, they pay in that they passed on the EV tax break. What would it cost to remove the CO2 rather than just stop producing more? That depends on how it's done, wouldn't it?

      I read a paper some time ago from, as I recall, a retired chemistry professor. His plan to take CO2 from the atmosphere was to mine basalt and spread it out on cropland. Basalt is mostly just sand, which does nothing for the crops. About a quarter of it is calcium and magnesium oxides that react with CO2 and create limestone. There's a lot of basalt to mine, we aren't going to run out.

      Why would farmers agree to have ground basalt spread on their fields? Because they do something like this already, spreading lime on fields is a common practice to control acidity in the soil and restore nutrients taken up by the crops. This professor (I can't remember his name) claims farmers should be able to be convinced to do this with a subsidy. I assume this subsidy would cover the cost difference of getting the lime from traditional sources plus a bit for the trouble.

      That brings the question on how farmers get this lime now for their fields. Turns out that they mine limestone and cook the CO2 out in large furnaces. This is a very old practice, going back hundreds or thousands of years. There are century old lime kilns all over the world. So, all the CO2 that this lime captures is the same as what was released in the firing of the limestone. Then there is the CO2 produced from fueling the furnaces.

      Why not replace this lime with basalt now? Why would we have to pay farmers to do this? Because basalt is a very hard rock and is difficult to mine. Limestone is relatively soft and easy to mine. Then there is the matter that basalt is only about half as effective by weight to control acidity as the lime from a lime kiln. This costs money. Don't blame the farmers for this, they just want to grow food as cheaply as they can so that you can buy it.

      Oh, another reason why this professor might not be taken seriously. He advocates using nuclear power to drive this basalt mining. The reasoning is simple, driving heavy mining equipment from wind and solar power is simply not practical. Using fossil fuels to drive the process is counter productive.

      So, what would this cost? One cost is having to use nuclear power. It seems that "environmentalists" that lack basic arithmetic skills cannot seem to figure out that carbon sequestration like this cannot be practically driven by wind and solar. If you want to get CO2 out of the air then first stop digging. That means nuclear power. Next step is mine basalt and grind it up so the natural process of reacting with CO2 in the air is sped up enormously. The first step, using nuclear power costs nothing really, people are willing to build nuclear power if only given permission to do so. The second step, where CO2 is actually removed, costs money. According to this professor it's very expensive now because there is no market, create a market and the price should come down.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    17. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by steveha · · Score: 1

      For a more comprehensive exploration of the merits and problems of government picking winners and losers, please read:

      http://www.economist.com/node/16741043

      Industrial policy remains controversial. Defined as the attempt by government to promote the growth of particular industrial sectors and companies, there have been successes, but also many expensive failures. Policy may be designed to support or restructure old, struggling sectors, such as steel or textiles, or to try to construct new industries, such as robotics or nanotechnology. Neither tack has met with much success. Governments rarely evaluate the costs and benefits properly.

      But as I said, the tax rebate for BEVs is one of the better ways to do it and I think it has worked.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    18. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it means how you define upper class. I know a fairly large number of people in the top 1%, including family members, and while I know one person who drives a Tesla S, I don't think any of the rest of them own cars over $50K. A bunch of BMWs, 300s and 500s....

      I associate expensive cars with vulgar nouvaeu rich. Like when I lived in Fremont and every Russian and Indian immigrant owned some kind of higher-end German car to show off to the other Russian and Indian immigrants. Really tacky if you're actually wealthy.

      But of course middle class and upper class are a huge amount of people and you can't say they all share a car preference. One of my super-wealthy friends doesn't even own a car and just Ubers everywhere. Maybe with younger people expensive cars are often not even a thing any more.

    19. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You drive your low-end BMW around race tracks? Neither car is really designed for race-track racing, and of course a Tesla is a better drive in daily driving. What point are you making?

    20. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with electric cars. They're great. But funding a scam company with taxpayer money is a different matter altogether.

    21. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 335i is not a low-end BMW.

    22. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of comparing something that does exist to another thing that doesn't?

    23. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by shilly · · Score: 2

      Even if there were going to be lots of people living near new plants whose health would now be damaged, which is not the case, this would still be the right thing to do considering the vastly higher numbers of people whose health is being damaged by exhaust fumes on the roads today.

    24. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if you are upper-class.

    25. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by shilly · · Score: 1

      I get the intent behind your post but the specifics are way off:
      >When's the cost of a battery recharge going to match the cost of an ICE Used car's fillup?
      A battery recharge is -- famously -- much much cheaper than an ICE fillup

      > When are electric charging stations going to be able to handle the numbers and flows of ICE Used cars.
      They won't ever need to, because usage and recharge patterns will be vastly different. Somewhere between 70 to 90% of EV drivers will do most of their charging at home. A large proportion will also charge at work day. Electrical outlets can be installed in many more places than gas stations -- in lamp-posts, in car-parks etc.

      >Where are all the petro fueled electric plants necessary for electric cars going to be built?
      Petroleum products won't be used for electric plants. Electricity will be generated from wind, solar, nuclear and coal, as today, with the mix trending towards renewables over time. There's a couple of decades of data to show this.

      >When are necessary electric plants going to be built?
      The net additional plants figure is unclear, and it doesn't help to confuse it with the gross increase in power requirements. We have to net off the reduction in refinery power requirements, the use of car batteries as part of generation-and-storage systems (charge car at work during the day, charge home battery at home during day, discharge car on journeys and use spare to boost the discharge of the home battery during the morning and evening peak consumption periods), etc etc.

    26. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by shilly · · Score: 1

      Gulf wars are free now, are they?

    27. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're fuel cost is gov't subsidized also, you boner-nose.

    28. Re: Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You know that Tesla Energy (used to be SolarCity) has generated more wattage than Tesla vehicles have used in the entire history of the fleet, right?

      I hear that people actually pay money to live UNDERNEATH the new electricity generating plants that HAVE been built. It's called rooftop PV solar.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    29. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Today? No change in USA numbers. Where's the production of Electric Cars that could supply the need?

      Supply and demand. When there is a demand there will be a supply. When it's $17/gal for gasoline then there will be a massive demand.

      When will the cost of Electric Cars reach the cost of Used cars in the USA?

      When it costs $250 to fill the tank of an ICE car, used cars won't be attractive in the least.

      Where's the range to permit the driving range of an ICE Used car?

      Most cars are commuter cars so they do already.

      When's the cost of a battery recharge going to match the cost of an ICE Used car's fillup?

      It's currently a few bucks to fully recharge an EV's battery. So, they do already.

      When are electric charging stations going to be able to handle the numbers and flows of ICE Used cars.

      EVs are mostly charged at home but again, it's supply and demand.

      Where are all the petro fueled electric plants necessary for electric cars going to be built?

      That wouldn't be cost effective. Remember the part about having to pay to capture all the CO2? It's more likely things would move to wind/solar/nuclear really fast.

      "Rome wasn't built in a day" but so many people seem to think a switch to Electric/Renewable/Magical can be accomplished by the end of the year. It will take decades -- just like the ICE cars displacing the animal drawn "cars" and "trucks" of the past.

      Off course it will take decades... unless there is a substantial monetary incentive to switch in which case everything would radically change very fast.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    30. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I've said before that what will happen is that the gas stations will get converted to lush, green parks with plugs. While the car is charging, people will do something physically active with their families. In additional to saving all of that gas burning, the new parks will actively cleanse the air. Plus people will engage in more athletic recreation for health. And the emotional benefit will lead to significantly reduced incidence of mental health disorders. And everybody will get a pony. Okay not the last one.

    31. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Also note that when government picks winners and losers, government tends to do a stupid job.

      Is the correct metric number or size of failures, or more like a VC firm, and the ROI over many ventures, some of which may be failures? (Return, if it's not purely financial is notoriously hard to measure)

    32. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by steveha · · Score: 1

      I've read a lot of discussion of Teslas online, and I've repeatedly seen comments like "Well, I think the Tesla interiors are cheap. My BMWs and Mercedes are much nicer, let alone my Bentley. I sold the Tesla and bought a Jaguar."

      In fairness to Tesla, I've also seen a lot of comments like "I have six cars, and since I got the Tesla I find I'm just not driving the others anymore. The Telsa is just so fun to drive." But the point is that the praise was always about how the Tesla is for driving, and not that the car is some kind of status symbol. I've never seen comments like "BMWs are passe, if you want to impress people drive a Tesla."

      Of course these rich people are always talking about the most expensive Tesla models, like a Model S P100D. Those cars have acceleration like a million-dollar supercar.

      P100D is the third-fastest car in the world

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    33. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which doesn't even try to refute what he said in the slightest.

      Try again, please.

    34. Re:Fueled by gov't subsidies.. by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      LOL!!! Everyone seems to forget the time it takes to recharge an EV either at home or at a charging station. if "time is money", then the cost of time must be factored in. Nobody gets that the Tesla superchargers take much longer than a gas fill up and still don't have the range of most ICE Used cars. I don't know about anyone else but my time is worth a lot to me. Fossil fuel power plant don't really change the environmental picture if that is where the EV's are getting their power. Coal usage in the USA has been crippled. Natural gas is the main source from what I read but nobody like that. The News carried a story that solar panel waste is extremely toxic so the cleanup and disposal of older units will be costly if and when the USA Governments permit newer, cleaner and more efficient ones to be installed -- particularly as replacements for the hazmat ones. We are in the midst of a transition and forced transitions are more costly than natural transitions. This will take decades if done safely and properly. But, hey! When did the USA Governments give a crap about their citizens/taxpayers/subjects/slaves/revenue source?

  10. "Elon time" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If there's one thing that has become very clear it is that Musk is not good at estimating how long something will take. At the same time, when he says it will happen, it does generally happen. The really good example of this is SpaceX. The Falcon 9 took far longer to get off the ground and be really reliable than he predicted, but once it did, it became an absolute monster in the industry. More than a third of all rocket launches worldwide this year are SpaceX launches http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/ and the projections suggest that will be more than half next year, even without the Falcon Heavy (which is another example of this since it has taken much longer but will eventually go). The real issue with Tesla is that if things go slowly enough then the other car companies will essentially out-compete him; but by his own description he's essentially ok with that, since the primary point of Tesla was help deal with global warming.

    1. Re:"Elon time" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's rocket science. Everyone who has worked in this field has taken longer than he thought it would, starting with von Braun.

    2. Re:"Elon time" by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always find it funny that people think it is even possible to pinpoint a date and time when anything is going to be ready. I barely can predict when dinner is going to be done. I can't imagine trying to predict something as complicated as a brand new electric car or a rocket launch down to the year, much less a day within that year.

    3. Re:"Elon time" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a fundamental uncertainty but when your date estimate is always off in one direction, you should clear adjust how you are estimating.

    4. Re:"Elon time" by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a fundamental uncertainty but when your date estimate is always off in one direction, you should clear adjust how you are estimating.

      You can do an ok job if you stick to predicting in one field. That guy has his finger in so many diverse fields. Anyway he is way better than the talking heads all excitement all day every day in CNBC.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:"Elon time" by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How come we only apply this to Musk? How long have we been hearing about the "imminent" Tesla-killers coming from the German automakers? I remember an article in the (hugely anti-Tesla) Daily Kanban in 2015 talking about how Porsche was getting ready to crush Tesla with the super-awesome-stupendulous Mission-E (along with a bunch of other no-show EVs), because the concept looks so double-plus awesome! Guess what? It's 2017 and it's still two years off. But wait, we finally got some spy shots of them finally testing - and guess what? After facing design reality, the concept now looks like nothing more than a glorified Panamera. Just wait for the disappointing stat/price point/production figures!

      Anyone who has followed the history of concept cars over the years knew damned well that this was going to happen, because it always does. Concept cars are art pieces, not things that are actually practical from aero / production / functionality designpoints. But far too many people have trouble conceiving of anything but that the only reason Tesla is succeeding is that the big automakers have been "keeping their powder dry" all this time, can crush Tesla at any point in time, and are just about to do so, any day now. The fact that they aren't and can't is inconceivable to them.

      (In case any is curious as to why they can't... link)

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    6. Re:"Elon time" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Hmm? I'm not in favor of just applying it to Musk, but it should be applied to people in general. Heck, note that I'm serious about not being selective here- my initial post in this subthread was making the point that Musk has the virtue that when he says something will happen, it does. His primary issue is with timelines. At the same time, it is worth noting that Musk has timing issues on pretty much everything he does (rockets, electric cars, solar power) so this isn't car specific. I'd just prefer if he (and anyone else who has the same problem) tried a little more to reduce their optimism levels a bit more.

    7. Re: "Elon time" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Musk is not good at estimating how long something will take.

      Who is?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:"Elon time" by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing too. If he'd been a bit more punctual the Germans might be running Europe now.

      Er, wait...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: "Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he trying to estimate though?
      To me it looks like goal setting.

    10. Re:"Elon time" by gravewax · · Score: 1

      it is quite possible, however the larger the project the more margin of error you need to build in. The problem with Musk is he states absolute best possible perfect world scenario and even then errs on the extreme optimist side which anyone familiar with large projects will tell you is a moronic thing to do as it sets unrealistic expectations that are almost certain to disappoint. What he should be doing is saying here is the upper and lower estimates for completion and when speaking using a number somewhere in the middle of that or providing the full range.

    11. Re: "Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peoples whose daily life and job depend on getting close. If I am off by more than 15-20% on my project estimations I will lose a significant portion of my income (and yes that can include significant underestimates as it means resources are allocated and underutilised that could have been deployed elsewhere if I had done a better job or that will potentially are losing work due to overestimating effort) estimation is a science like any other and should be based on learning from past experience as well as taking into account risks.

    12. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If there's one thing that has become very clear it is that Musk is not good at estimating how long something will take."

      I think that's a bit charitable.

      The following is a bit of a cruel comparison, but does anyone remember how Microsoft would announce that they would enter a market to kill off competitors?

      It's an effective (if questionable) business strategy to mislead customers to make them delay spending money on competitors.

    13. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says we only apply this to Musk? every company/CEO gets his feet held to the blowtorch when they significantly underestimate projects, some even lose their jobs over it. Porsche have been panned everywhere for their failures however their current EV vehicle is still on schedule as unlike Elon they are very conservative in their timeline estimates, they aren't due on the road till 2019.

    14. Re:"Elon time" by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, at least a year after the originally announced timeline, depending on when in 2019 they deliver (if they deliver at all in 2019). Where's all of the ranting articles about Porsche missing their announcement by at least a year?

      And that's one example among countless supposed "Tesla Killers".

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    15. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you on about, in 2015 they announced 2019 release. an Article just last month says they are still on track for a 2019 release unless you have something to the contrary? FYI, I don't like Porsche and would never buy one of those pieces of shit, but none the less I can't find anything that supports your assertions?

    16. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porsche schedule is unchanged to my knowledge?? admittedly though I have only been following it since 2015, I gather something must have changed back in 2014 or earlier? announcement in 2015 was for late 2019 with widespread availability in 2020 across multiple model ranges.

    17. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since the primary point of Tesla was to inflate the stock price and keep things running with taxpayer handouts in the meantime.

      FTFY.

    18. Re:"Elon time" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think most manufacturers massively underestimated the difficulty of building a good EV. There are plenty of half-baked crappy ones, like the eGolf/eUp and the Mercedes B Class. But to do a really good one is hard. Nissan spent years developing the Leaf and it really shows, and Tesla did likewise.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:"Elon time" by Rei · · Score: 1

      No, they announced 2018 in 2015.

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    20. Re:"Elon time" by Rei · · Score: 1
      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    21. Re:"Elon time" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Virtually nobody estimates schedules (or budgets) correctly. Nobody wants to hear the truth, so you underestimate. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

      One of my coworkers turned to me after we'd shared an office for four or five years and said "I thought you were a bit of a pessimist, but then everything you said came true."

    22. Re:"Elon time" by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Nissan spent years developing the Leaf and it really shows, and Tesla did likewise.

      The issue with the Leaf (or the Renault Zoe) is range, as it's still approximately half that of a Tesla. I don't know about Nissan, but Renault charges a fee for the battery each month, but will then replace it when required, which takes away a barrier. If the Leaf had twice the range (i.e. 240 miles) I would have bought one, and when I next need a car then if one, or something similar, is affordable and the range is better, then I am fairly likely to do so.

    23. Re:"Elon time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No where in either article is any statement about production or delivery numbers at all. Find the quote from any company executive or representative stating their plans, like Musk's statements.

    24. Re:"Elon time" by gravewax · · Score: 1

      you seem really confused about your articles. That article does not state a 2018 delivery, the all electric is based on their 2018 Panamera model, it is not nor has it ever been scheduled for a 2018 delivery, the 2018 delivery was always for a hydrid variant upon which the all electric vehicle will be based..

  11. Fucking crazy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know it's grade-A news when it cites a twenty-five-year-old Simpsons episode as its reasoning.

    1. Re:Fucking crazy.... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know it's grade-A news when it cites a twenty-five-year-old Simpsons episode as its reasoning.

      CNN is a liberal news outlet that can't even be bothered to coin its own irrelevant snark. It has to swipe someone else's.

    2. Re:Fucking crazy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN is a liberal news outlet that can't even be bothered to coin its own irrelevant snark. It has to swipe someone else's.

      I agree that a liberal (aka realistic) news outlet with their own snark would be better. Then again, in the age of Trump satire is sometimes difficult. No matter how outrageous you make it, there's always the danger that next day Trump does something even more outrageous.

    3. Re:Fucking crazy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how outrageous you make it, there's always the danger that next day Trump does something even more outrageous.

      Now you understand how the other side felt for 8 years under Oblamer.

  12. Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS... apk by cb88 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ownership of a bump stock does not make you a mass murder or terrorist. Just like owning a machine gun would not make you a mass murder or terrorist. Things do not define who we are... on the other hand choosing to impinge on the innate rights of your fellow citizens because you have been duped into being a lamb of the slaughter does make you a traitor to our nation by the people and for the people.

    Even in the roaring twenties when mobsters ran amok it wasn't the guns that made them so dangerous it was the inability of police to respond fast enough and catch them... gunning people down and expecting to live hasn't been a valid criminal pursuit for probably 5-60+ years. So, you're trying "solve" a non existent problem. The real problem we have is lack of respect for life its very fundamental and if it were taught and instilled in our children to the same degree that "safe sex is" we probably wouldn't even need sex education classes because they would know the gravity of creating a new life and the responsibility that would be required of them.

    Be very careful of changing the balance of power, because it can end disastrously. Are you really willing to trade a gun security theatre (take the ineffectiveness of the TSA as an example) for your right to protect yourself and your property!!???

  13. People don't understand how technology comes about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great advances aren't created through incremental changes from old things. The famous saying on the topic is: "If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses", attributed to Henry Ford. But on the other hand it's often not a single flash of genius either: Usually many people see the opportunity for big change. There isn't a person in a technical field who doesn't have a pet peeve about something that is obviously more cumbersome than it needs to be. Most people never do anything about it, especially when big change is necessary. What it really takes is someone with the ability to recognize the opportunity, and the will and means to see it through. What that means is not letting small problems throw you off course. So it takes a little longer. But if the concept is solid, then that doesn't matter. It will work. Seeing that is the key. It takes people who can work years on something while everybody else thinks they're wasting their time and that whatever they're working on will never work. But they keep working because they know that the concept is sound, they just haven't found the way to get there yet. This isn't quarterly thinking. It's how engineers think. Knowing you can build it, you just don't know how yet.

  14. CNN is a joke by Charcharodon · · Score: 0, Troll
    I'm not going to be a cheer leader for Musk, but I'll be happy to tear into CNN.

    What ever they say, the exact opposite is more likely to be true.

  15. Elon by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Musk promised more Model 3's than he ended up delivering, and bigger SpaceX rockets and spacecraft than he ended up delivering, but I still don't see the competition quite catching up. The rockets that he did deliver still dominate the launch market and manage to land their first stages ass-first, intact. So it's not like Elon is all fake, instead it's all about managing expectations. The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.

    1. Re:Elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Musk promised more Model 3's than he ended up delivering, and bigger SpaceX rockets and spacecraft than he ended up delivering, but I still don't see the competition quite catching up. The rockets that he did deliver still dominate the launch market and manage to land their first stages ass-first, intact. So it's not like Elon is all fake, instead it's all about managing expectations. The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.

      I find Musk a wholly more impressive failure than "successes" like, what, the iPhone 8? Delivered on time, yes. But awaited with bated breath only by morons. So much more of the same.

      Yes, Musk is overselling. Still better than reselling.

    2. Re: Elon by pdavisgenoa · · Score: 0

      Basically. And in the case of the Semi you can ho watch video of him talking about it and saying the initial date was a "best case" scenario but click sites love to ignore that part and say it was a promise. Also when it comes to the "what" of the product or service he's generally accurate. It's details of size or quantity of the thing that usually get adjusted down - not the thing itself.

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

      The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.

      Musky benefiting from tax money while not delivering on his promises is much worse than competitors achieving less, being honest about it, and not milking taxpayers for their own pockets.

  16. Re:Sexism by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

    I recall everybody singing her praises until the fraud was exposed.

  17. Nothing burger by pdavisgenoa · · Score: 0

    Anyone that's followed Musk since PayPal (I have) could easily tell you this is not only typical of his businesses MO's but a feature. It's not about over-promising because he doesn't "promise". He gives optimistic, aspirational goals and benchmarks and is consistently upfront that they are aspirational. In fact this delay is a very short one by his standards. The thing about Elon Musk is that in spite of all his detractors he does deliver. You can't say the same about his competitors regardless of the field. This is just CNN being snarky because they love to tear down good people in a passive-aggressive way and Slashdot fanning it on.

  18. Re:Sexism by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She didn't get a free pass because all of her snakeoil was bullshit. Elon Musk has cut real metal and made real products delivered to real customers. I call bullshit on his pie in the sky, but I give him props for things he's actually done. Elizabeth Holmes never had anything to her name besides the hype and a black turtleneck sweater.

  19. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well it's hard for CNN these days. They spend 99% of their time worrying about Trump and research on real news takes time.

    The fact that Slashdot is quoting those ass hats is more worrisome than whether Musk can meet a deadline.

  20. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.

  21. Monorail :) by bothorsen · · Score: 0

    No matter if this is right or not, I love the reference :)

  22. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Beat me to it. Looks like it's going to be done well ahead of schedule. But hey, facts havenever stopped anyone before when trying to find reasons to bash Musk.

    Facts like the fact that Musk never said he had approval from New York City - that he actually said, "verbal govt approval". Which he did - the government he was speaking of was the federal government (DOT, asked about it: "We have had promising conversations to date, are committed to transformative infrastructure projects, and believe our greatest solutions have often come from the ingenuity and drive of the private sector,""). But hey, let's leave that part out and pretend that Musk was just making things up.

    Facts like, for example, that Model 3's production schedule had been moved forward to July (was originally supposed to start at the end of this year), with Musk stating at the time that the reason for the July deadline was because he knew some suppliers would inevitably fail to meet their deadline and he had to have a way to hold their feet to the fire with real penalties for failing to deliver. Of course, they actually did make the July deadline.

    The Wall Street Journal will gripe about the fact that there are missing features in the (over-the-air-upgraded) software stack and that there's some manual labour / part changes in manufacture because automated assembly line isn't yet complete. Really, WSJ? Gee we all thought that the line was fully ready to produce tens of thousands of vehicles per month, but the schedule was only to produce a couple hundred for giggles. And of course, every Tesla short will whine about how there are customers acting as "beta", ignoring the fact that none of the above comes as any surprise to anyone with a deposit, particularly the earliest ones, and that they're thrilled to have the chance to get their vehicles early. I know one who, after having the car for just two weeks, already put down a deposit on a second one.

    But hey, I guess someone has to try to recoup some of their losses in their ill-advised short position in TSLA.

    --
    "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  23. Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admittedly Musk can makes some overreaching promises on unattainable timetables, but this "article" seems overly harsh. As far as the Model 3 these are initial production runs which almost never go off without a hitch. His space plans are undoubtedly ambitions but the launch industry laughed about his reusability plans a decade ago and now ULA/Arianespace are shitting bricks scrambling to roll out their own reusable rockets. He has done something similar in the car industry where most major manufacturers scuttled their own EV plans years ago claiming they "weren't viable", now suddenly after Teslas successes they're all rolling out multiple EV models. I'm sure Musk is going to have his failures like anyone does but it's safe to say that he's already made a rather positive impact on multiple industries (grid batteries, space launch, residential solar, EV, etc)

  24. Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a bump stock to protected my property

  25. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holmes from what I understand never produced a product, just repackaged other companies products while she "developed" her own blood testing system. Musk on the otherhand has launched dozens of orbital rockets, installed a quarter of a million residential solar systems, and has hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road.

  26. Re:Well CNN finally has some real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So umm... them rockets and all those cars, those are snakeoil?

  27. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    15 may 2016:

    Tesla promised to start deliveries by the end of 2017, and to move 500,000 units a year (including Model S and Model X sales) by 2020.

    Musk, apparently feeling his company isn't under quite enough pressure, upped the ante during Wednesday's call, saying he'll deliver 100,000 cars by the end of 2017 and hit the half-million threshold in 2018.

    I'll repeat: Tesla accelerated their own schedule. Their original schedule was "something, at some point, in 2017". They changed it to an extremely aggressive S curve starting in July. As for the latter part:

    "I think it’s worth explaining sort of how manufacturing a complex object with several thousand unique components actually works. And what date’s relevant and – in order to achieve volume production of a new car with several thousand unique items, you actually have to set a target date internally and with suppliers that is quite aggressive.”

    According to Musk, that target date in July 1 of 2017. That doesn’t mean that the Model 3 will enter production on July 1st, because as Musk explains:

    “Now, will we actually be able to achieve volume production on July 1 next year? Of course, not. The reason is that even if 99% of the internally produced items and supplier items are available on July 1, we still cannot produce the car because you cannot produce a car that is missing 1% of its component.”

    Musk says that actual production will be “some number of months later,” due to supply chain issues and internal production problems. This, according to Musk, is how the entire automotive industry works. In some ways then,start of production for the Model 3 is not entirely controlled by Tesla.

    Musk concluded this part of the discussion with this statement:

    “So in order for us to be confident of achieving volume production of Model 3 by late 2017, we actually have to set a date of mid-2017 and really hold people’s feet to the fire internally and externally to achieve an actual volume production date of late 2017.”

    He then provided a production target, which is way beyond what we’d expected to hear:

    “So as a rough guess, I would say we would aim to produce 100,000 to 200,000 Model 3s in the second half of next year. That’s my expectation right now.

    --
    "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  28. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you accelerate something after delays and misses, and you are still below early projections, its hardly some victory.

  29. Betting against musk is like punching yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Betting against musk is like punching yourself in the dick.

  30. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    yep, basically Elon has used weasel words to not meet the 100 day deadline. The 100 days only just started even though they have been building for months already and it isn't scheduled to be complete till December, basically all up it will be closer to double his estimate but because of the way he has done it he will still get paid.

  31. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Rei · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A month behind a highly accelerated schedule. Ooh, shudder. My teapot can hardly handle this tempest.

    --
    "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  32. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he is actually a long way behind schedule and will finish months late, however due to the way finalisation of the contract went his "official" 100 days only starts from last week even though the work actually started much sooner, he is also not scheduled to complete till December so he is fucking lucky on the contract signing as he would have missed the stated deadline by a wide margin (and that is if he keeps to current schedule).

  33. He who unerestimates Musk usually loses by mschuyler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there's anything pundits, so-called experts, and know-nothing journalists should know by now it is to underestimate Elon Musk is a losing proposition. Everything these scoffers said could not be done---ever, has been done by Musk.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:He who unerestimates Musk usually loses by ledow · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference to saying "it can't be done" and saying "it's not at all practical/profitable to do".

      So far, I don't think anything he's said can't be done. He breaks no laws of physics that I'm aware of.

      But the expense to do so, and the advantages of doing do given back, don't match AT ALL. Batteries, electric cars, rockets, fancy trains - he can throw money at anything, of course. And you'll meet a modicum of success, of course. So long as you don't count "viable business model" under the criteria for success.

      Tesla don't make profit. The batteries are industry standard designs that they tell us "will be cheaper in bulk". The rockets are basically a way to throw money away so far (but of course people will use them to launch their insured satellites, because you're the one losing money, they're just getting a cheap launch), and the trains thing - miles of tunnel sustaining vacuum indefinitely? Yeah, that stuff just happens and can be funded by a bit extra on a train ticket that consumers would pay to save a bit of time, of course it can..... Hey, have you met my friend Concorde?

      People in the media aren't experts. If they were experts, they'd be working in those businesses. The experts, those working at places like NASA and Ford and similar competing companies... they're using Musk as a research guineau pig while they sit on 100 times the investment he could ever secure. They let him throw his money away on what doesn't work / isn't popular, and if he hits on anything they can take him out of the market in days. They don't often talk about him because they're quite happy to see him throw his money away on things that they probably would never bother to invest in.

      But the second he's more than a celebrity throwing money into a large industrial-size bin, they can swoop and take his business in no time. Fact is, they're not, and they're not even bothering to compete, not because they can't but because there's little point. Tesla sell a pittance of cars compared to any car manufacturer you can name. Their rockets aren't stealing money from NASA, they're actually funding it. The trains thing is pure hyperbole at the moment and if people want faster trains, there's much more affordable middle-ground anywhere they want it. And the battery thing? It has no legs. It's literally "let's do what everyone else does, in bulk!". Except there are a number of companies already doing exactly that and Musk doesn't even have a factory for his yet.

      The man is money and hyperbole. Nobody competing is going to bad-mouth him while that's true because the worst possible situation is: he does something interesting that captures the public's spending, and then they copy 100 times over. But all other situations are: he spends lots of money to make much less money, and all his claims end up never coming to fruition.

  34. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right. So let me get this straight: we're supposed to be mad at Muskwhile they're moving the equipment in and installing it well within 100 days from the signing of the contract, it doesn't count, because we're supposed to judge Tesla not by the terms given (100 days from the signing of the contract), but instead a term that was never offered (100 days from the issuance of this tweet). Correct? And that there's something abnormal and unfair about a multi-million dollar power contract not being negotiated overnight?

    --
    "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  35. after Trillions have been spent to subsidize gas? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Capital T trillion. Trillions in tax dollars over the decades to build streets and highways (tearing down consumer rail in the process) to support gas burning trucks and cars. Trillions given away over the years in either direct subsidies to oil and gas - tax breaks and letting them drill on public land for next to nothing - and indirect subsidies like not making them pay for environmental restoration.

    But now it's a problem when we start talking a fraction of that sum to move away from CO2 production?

  36. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Shun the nonbeliever! Shun! Shuuuun!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  37. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you don't have to be mad at him, But his ridiculous estimates need to be called out. They had to have a letter of intent prior to even beginning building and land etc. The 100 days should have started at that point, instead he delayed signing significantly and my guess is part of that is both the SA government and Elon wanting to ensure they didn't have the bad PR of a significant miss as this would have been huge political loss for the government, especially as they are being raped cost wise by Elon here..

  38. Haters are going to hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lots of jealous people out there hating on Musk. And then there are the fearful fossil fuel autocrats and auto competitors who failed at sabotaging Tesla

    1. Re:Haters are going to hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is jealous, and nobody is "hating on him" you fucking simpleton. When you start missing deadlines for your "pie in the sky" promises, there are going to be skeptics.

  39. Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently he said SpaceX would land people on Mars in 5 years.

    First, Elon plans to land cargo ships on Mars in 5 years.

    Second, Musk's time-line for landing humans on Mars is 7 years.

    Third, Musk never said that those people would be alive.

    Musk hasn’t yet specified how all those humans will survive once they’ve landed on a world with noxious soil and a suffocating atmosphere.

    Fourth, Musk has already created the fastest production car from 0-60, reusable rockets that land themselves, the largest factory in the world, huge batteries, integrated solar roof panels. All this while opening patents and boring a hole for high speed transit. Don't forget how Musk's PayPal changed the way we make purchases.

    Just because his time-line is off, doesn't make him a failure. Musk is reaching for perfection and achieving excellence.

    1. Re:Details by eepok · · Score: 1

      That sure is a lot of Kool-Aid you're drinking there.

      "Musk has already created the fastest production car from 0-60"
      So? No one at ALL said the world needed an electric sports car drag racer. MUSK said he would design and sell an electric sports car, sell it to the rich, and use the revenue to build an EV for the people. Well, he sold it to the rich using massive subsidies from the middle class... and then didn't bring in enough revenue to make the EV for the masses. That's why they've gone out for additional BILLIONS in venture capital twice since Model 3 production began.

      "... reusable rockets that land themselves"
      A rocket that was able to land itself is not "rockets that land themselves". It's not a proven tech. It's not mass produced. The job's not done. It's still a work in progress.

      "... the largest factory in the world"
      So? Literally any major company with the need to manufacture could do that if they found it necessary. And it's not like he built it himself.

      "... huge batteries"
      Big is not an accomplishment if the demand, affordability, production, and distribution aren't there.

      "... integrated solar roof panels"
      Are you sure that's actually done? Because they're not for sale yet. They've been demo'd on a few Tesla employees' roofs. And it literally will not have a cost comparable to replacing a regular shingle roof. It's still a work in progress.

      There are differences between dreams, plans, experiments, production, sales, delivery, and solvency. Musk talks dreams a lot. He plans a fair share. Considering all the products he talks about, the variety of his production is fairly low. Sales of those items produced are good (Roadster, Model S, Model X, Model 3), but delivery is lacking on the Model 3. And solvency (financial surviviability on non-investment, non-subsidy revenue) is highly risky.

  40. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Those batteries were stock he would always have found someone to sell to. Due to the nature of (Australian) politics there was never going to be any surety that we were going to buy them. The fact it took us this long to sign the damn contract is actually very typical in Australia. Musk could have been waiting double the time only for us to say no.

    The fact you're trying to use the fact he has stock in the warehouse to sell means you likely have an agenda. So I'm calling bullshit on your post.

  41. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    When do you think he got a letter of intent? Looking at their system, I think even 100 days is not too hard for them to achieve; the installation is massively parallel and the site prep isn't that hard. I am surprised they used underground conduits-- it must mean they have that much confidence in their schedule. (I would have expected cable tray overhead.)

  42. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.

    His incompetence this time is less than his incompetence before. Surely that is just as good as delivering on a promise.

  43. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A month behind is a month behind.

    If you called your boss and said you would be in early tomorrow, but then not show up or call for the next month, guess what your employment status will be?

    A lie is a lie.

  44. CNN: by hey! · · Score: 1

    Cap'n Nobvious News.

    Does anybody believe Musk can do *everything* he says he wants to do, and pull it off without so much as a delay?

    Some people might think he can do them all eventually, but even those of us who expect some of his ideas never to go anywhere can't ever be quite sure about which ideas those will be. He's had a history of sticking with things even through a lot of intermediate failure.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  45. Re:Sexism by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Musk on the otherhand has launched dozens of orbital rockets, installed a quarter of a million residential solar systems, and has hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road.

    And don't forget millions of credit card chargebacks at PayPal.

  46. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is, why did anyone ever buy into his bullshit to begin with? I swear, at times it seems that the 2010s began with everyone, particularly the business community, willingly removing their brains. To compare modern tech leaders (Zuck, Musk, Bezos, Google at large) to people like Steve Jobs or Tim Berners Lee is lunacy. Money changes everything, folks. Everything.

  47. Impersonating me? Weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Whoever the fool is attempting to "impersonate me" only proves that I've REALLY 'gotten to them' somehow (thanks).

    * I am with you on something though - there is a TON of bogus downmoderation but as the saying goes? "When all your opposition has is censorship you've obviously won" (& I am highly against the LOON(s) who shot all those folks up in Vegas - I think it's somekind of falseflag OR an attempt @ further dividing our nation up ala the KING of bogus evil in that capacity, George Soros paying off groups like BLM & Antifa to do so...) - but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - people do. NO reason to ban guns!

    As far as "AssFux" Ash-Fox? That whimp's a weasel who ALWAYS starts w/ me (he's 'butthurt' I've busted him up on tech issues is all that is)...

    APK

    P.S.=> Provoking weasel reactions like yours is all the satisfaction anyone needs... apk

  48. Re: after Trillions have been spent to subsidize g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the ultimate subsidy. Young men dying in the desert, for oil. (Let alone the cost as a percentage of GDP on armament)

  49. Being on time doesn't matter by Centurix · · Score: 1

    a) Get something done on time cutting corners and ultimately fucking it up
    b) Spending a little extra time and getting it right

    To quote another rocketeer: "It's done, when it's done"

    --
    Task Mangler
  50. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    For why? of course is really the question. Why pick on Tesla and Elon Musk, well, at least two groups in that market, competing automotive manufacturers and fossil fuel industry. Would they pay to attack Tesla and Elon Musk as part of that attack against Tesla, do wild rabid dogs have fleas, well, yes to both. Elon Musk does like to open up on his long term dreams and there is nothing wrong with that and some dreams will be more successful than others, meh. Just typical of modern main stream media that actively serves it advertisers way ahead of it's consumers and will actively lie to and fought in court the right to lie to consumers, they call it news entertainment.

    So they are entertaining us with stories about russia to head of debate on universal health care. So attacks on Tesla mainly to head off electric vehicle competition with fossil fuel and to prevent Tesla getting to great a lead on other automotive manufacturers in electric vehicles. So personal attacks on Elon Musk in order to attack Tesla, automotive and of course solar power and battery back (a new threat, the distributed power station, the structure is already built, it just needs it's generators and batteries, the power station structure your home, not just your electric needs but also the rest of the grid).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  51. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    well given they started a few months ago and they aren't scheduled to complete in December I would say 100 days is actually an impossibility at this point otherwise he would be doing it rather than having it half built prior to the 100 day timer starting.

  52. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.

    Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333

    Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.

  53. Guess you aren't big into facts. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    Facts like the fact that Musk never said he had approval from New York City - that he actually said, "verbal govt approval". Which he did - the government he was speaking of was the federal government

    The federal government lacks the authority to make such a commitment. And if you actually read the article you linked, and even the text you quoted, no commitment is to be found. But hey, let's leave that part out.
     
     

    Facts like, for example, that Model 3's production schedule had been moved forward to July (was originally supposed to start at the end of this year), with Musk stating at the time that the reason for the July deadline was because he knew some suppliers would inevitably fail to meet their deadline and he had to have a way to hold their feet to the fire with real penalties for failing to deliver. Of course, they actually did make the July deadline.

    Since they weren't talking about the July deadline... this is relevant, how? He promised delivery of 'x' in September, he failed to fulfill that promise. But hey, let's leave that part out.
     
     

    The Wall Street Journal will gripe about the fact that there are missing features in the (over-the-air-upgraded) software stack and that there's some manual labour / part changes in manufacture because automated assembly line isn't yet complete. Really, WSJ? Gee we all thought that the line was fully ready to produce tens of thousands of vehicles per month, but the schedule was only to produce a couple hundred for giggles.

    Um, no. The plan was to produce 1500 vehicles. He failed to do so. But hey, let's leave that part out.

    Or, to put it another way, you're 0 for 3 when it comes to facts.

    1. Re:Guess you aren't big into facts. by Rei · · Score: 1

      The federal government lacks the authority to make such a commitment. And if you actually read the article you linked, and even the text you quoted, no commitment is to be found. But hey, let's leave that part out.

      Right. It would have been much more responsible of Elon if he had continued his tweet with, oh, I don't know, something like "Still a lot of work needed to receive formal approval, but am optimistic that will occur rapidly". Right?

      He promised delivery of 'x' in September

      He did not promise anything. You clearly did not watch the launch event and have clearly never payed attention to the earnings calls.

      Um, no. The plan was to produce 1500 vehicles.

      The target was 30-100-300-1500 (they're, as has been stated many times in this comments' section, one month behind) - all of those numbers vastly below the production design of tens of thousands per month. To repeat: "Gee we all thought that the line was fully ready to produce tens of thousands of vehicles per month, but the schedule was only to produce a couple hundred for giggles."

      --
      "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
    2. Re:Guess you aren't big into facts. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I don't buy this "verbal approval" nonsense any more than you do, but while the Federal government lacks the authority to make any kind of final approval for such a project, they definitely have the authority to get in the way of such a project and halt it before it starts.

      You know that there is no total approval of any kind of wacky tunnel project, because not a single shovel full of dirt has been moved on it yet. And I'm sure that the States this thing would be going through have a few choice words to say about it.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  54. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the half complete is not talking about fucking stock in a warehouse. They have been discussing the onsite build while he was onsite in Jamestown SA which already had commenced and giving musks perchance for massive exaggeration this probably means it is 5% complete. Personally I think it is a disgrace that we are paying Musk for this as other companies could have provided the same facility at considerably less cost and many of those local companies are screaming because of it, but this is typical labour where big headlines and PR are more important than value for money.

  55. Re: after Trillions have been spent to subsidize g by blindseer · · Score: 1

    You want to stop the practice of sending young men off to die in some far off desert? Put these dictators out of business. Make domestic energy so cheap that we don't have to go over there to get more. Implement a true "all the above" energy strategy. I hear Democrats (and it's almost always Democrats) talk about an all the above strategy to reduce CO2 output but when something threatens to actually solve the problem it gets killed in congressional bullshit.

    Keystone XL is a good example. Killing this project doesn't stop people from burning oil, it just diverts the movement of oil to whatever path of least resistance might be. In this case it's oil from a friendly neighbor, Canada, not ending up in refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. Instead it would likely end up on a ship bound for China or Japan. This is because it's easier for Canada to sell the oil there, and the USA to buy oil from South America, than try to ship the oil by truck or rail.

    You want to reduce oil spills? Then build more pipelines, they don't spill near as often as ships, trucks, or trains. These pipes move natural gas too. Not great as far as CO2 goes but still 1/2 the CO2 output of coal for electricity production.

    Let's talk electricity production too. You want to stop the burning of coal? Then build nuclear power plants. We've started building them again but not nearly fast enough. We need to build one gigawatt nuclear power plant per month to replace the current coal and nuclear power plants at the rate they are getting shut down. That's not adding any new capacity, that's just keeping up with retiring old power plants.

    We replace coal with nuclear then we can use this abundant natural gas for our cars and trucks. If you think that for some reason we can't build a new nuclear power plant every month then think again. We've done it before, we can do it again.

    Let's do all the above. Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and even coal. Put those oil funded dictators out of business.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  56. Musk relies on others taking all the risks by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    It is the definition of excess risk to invest in stock valued above the merits of the cash flows of any company. That was the real cause of the economic collapses of the US and Japan. Irrational exuberance doesn't generate real cash flows.

  57. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does Elon's cock taste?

  58. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Citation needed on the local companies. Also what time frame did they need for that reduced cost?

  59. CNN has really gone downhill since last year by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I live in what we call a "red state" (supports the Republican Party in case you don't know what that means) and I'm surrounded by lots of extremely conservative people. They typically think that Fox News is completely fair and objective and right down the middle in its reporting and that CNN is insanely on the left. They usually don't even know that MSNBC even exists. Their heads would explode if they did.

    I used to hold up CNN as an example of a news source that I felt was pretty fair to everybody, but not any more. Chris Cillizza writes a lot of articles for their website and he's definitely biased towards the Democratic Party. He sometimes writes articles that make a lot of good points and sometimes you get partisan hack pieces. Other writers are about the same. I can't say I'm surprised to see some Musk bashing. I'd simply say that being 2 years late on a car model when you're not GM, Ford or Chrysler is maybe not that much of a big deal or a surprise. It's not like being 10+ years late. And the monorail reference is stupid. Springfield got the monorail on time. The point was that they didn't really need it in the first place, not that it was years late in being delivered. Musk has a 100 day contract to deliver to South Australia. If he fails to meet the deadline, blast him then. Everybody smart enough not to get paid for writing for CNN probably gets that his "verbal approval" for the hyperloop is vague and preliminary. I like Musk because we need dreamers to see a better future. For example, we last went to the moon over 40 years ago and we still don't know if or when we'll ever go back, let alone get to Mars, in large part because nobody has the vision needed to make tomorrow happen. Everybody would rather just stay in their comfortable rut.

  60. CNN actually reported something I agree with? by Chas · · Score: 1

    IMG SRC="http://www.holyshit.com/FredSandfordHeartAttack.gif"

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  61. Loosers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s funny how loosers always criticize everything and never get anything done. Hey CNN if youâ(TM)r smarter why dont you build a Tesla than a Spacex And Paypal while youâ(TM)re at it...

    1. Re:Loosers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true dullard.

  62. Part Showman and Part Inventor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon is definitely part P.T. Barnum and part Edison. There is a bit of showmanship in his ideas and presentation, but he does continue to move the industry forward.

  63. Re:MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS... apk by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    How about we just mod you offtopic instead, because you always are? What the fuck does your "HOSTS file engine" or gun control have to do with this story? And how are they "supporting" a mass murderer who is already dead and gone through using this site's version of a squelch knob to increase the signal-to-noise ratio by making your posts less visible? That's some "if you don't vote for the Patriot Act you're supporting the terrorists!" kind of logic, which is exactly the kind of hypocrisy we've all come to expect from you.

    Attempting to get anywhere close to on-topic with this story: is Tesla giving out free bump stocks with the purchase of a Model S and you're the first to break the story? Are the cars using hosts files to prevent connection to anything but the Tesla car network, and those are being updated by your thing you keep prattling on about? No?

    Then you're just spraying piss and vinegar because mods are doing exactly what they should be doing. That's not censorship, that's just how the site works. Censorship would be full-up deleting your comments. Anyone can browse at -1 to read your off-topic bullshit. Don't be a dumbass, and you won't get modded into oblivion. Stay on topic - it's only been a rule around here forever, and it's been enforced by the moderation system since it was added well over 15 years ago.

    I expect this post to similarly be modded off-topic. And I won't get all butt-hurt about it and start CAPITALIZING every other WORD and spewing NONSENSE in every article comment section like you are.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  64. If you're not skeptical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot.

    I know that in America when "dreaming" + "entrepreneur" + "business" god tier person; but....... cmon

  65. but Springfield had a trained,skilled professional by mbaGeek · · Score: 1

    if you haven't seen that episode of "the SImpsons" - (Season 4 Episode 12) here you go

    My work here is done

    --
    It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
  66. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    You're right. Perfection should be all that anyone ever does, and anything less should be considered abject failure.

    I really hope that you are never in charge of anything, because with that attitude you will always be wallowing in failure.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  67. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    And if the contract were never signed, he would have poured a shitload of concrete and shipped a fuckton of batteries to Australia with no payment coming in. It's called 'risk' and he accepted it. He risked that the papers wouldn't be signed and started a 6 month contract 3 months before finalization, in order to get that 6 month contract done in 3 months.

    But somehow he's cheating by taking on the risk himself instead of being like every other government contractor ever and saying "whoops, we're not done on time. Guess you'll just keep paying for it until it is done and we'll pocket the overage!"

    Sounds like Australia is getting what they need, at the agreed upon price, on the agreed schedule. How is this a bad thing? Oh, but it's a company headed by Musk, so BOOOO! Boo I say!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  68. Over City Hall's head.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Approved by the Illuminati. Of course City Hall is clueless.

  69. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yeah, somehow it's bad that Tesla started work early and had faith in the Aussie government to actually sign the contract, I guess. But if they wouldn't have started early and waited for the papers, it would have been "Why is nothing being done on this project? What the fuck are they waiting for?"

    With some people around here, you just can't win. Some people are just salty, and will never be happy with anything.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  70. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other companies could build literally the biggest grid-connected energy storage facility in the world for "considerably" less cost? Then why aren't they?

    Who are these amazing companies with massive battery factories that nobody has ever heard of, and capable of installing utility-scale energy storage projects that have never been proposed, nor designed, nor actually built? Name them, and cite some sources. Or shut the fuck up.

  71. This is about the power of the media... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is about the power of the media to make and break people and influence an entire country.

    Musk probably hasn't contributed where he was supposed to, or ruffled a few feathers in the larger competitors with deeper pockets (*cough* GM *cough*), because there appears to be a clear concerted effort at discrediting him. Now it's only a matter of periodically posting something bad and muzzling the news about good advancements (SpaceX, Tesla etc) and media is very good at it.

    Remember last weeks GM post about how it's impossible to do self-driving with cameras). We now have weekly posts about some rando thinks about stuff that Musk said or planned, which get the attention because they're backed by the "Big Media".

    That's why it's dangerous to let Facebook, Google et al to decide what is good news that people "deserve to hear" and what is not.

  72. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If I had low production for a month, my employment status would still be "full-time employee". It's not like Tesla disappeared or produced nothing for September.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  73. Pie in the sky by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    So far, my favorite Musk pie-in-the-sky promise was dramatically lowering cost to low Earth orbit.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  74. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by eth1 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333

    Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.

    "produced just 17.3% of the cars they'd planned," while technically true, was probably chosen to sound much worse than it really is. "1500 people had to wait an extra month for their new car" is probably more accurate from a "what's actually going on" standpoint, but also probably doesn't make nearly as good of a headline.

  75. Re: Guess they are not big into the whole news thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Promised' and 'planned' are different words, you disengenious prat.

  76. Smells Musky in here by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    I guess what he is producing is more of a Shelbyville idea

  77. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he 'promise' , or did he 'plan'?

    If he planned those levels, well he didn't meet planned expectations.

    If he 'promised' those levels, well he didn't meet promised expectations.

    Seeing as he , and Tesla are
    a) a private company ...
    b) he's doing more for forging new technology ahead than the rest of the auto industry.

    Is this kool-aid drinking? Not at all. Just someone excited to see where this goes.

    Oh yea. And the reason you don't hear too much from the rest of the auto-industry... ? At least nothing positive ... They have stock-holders, a board, and 'futures' to worry about. THEIR words, have DIRECT monetary consequences.

    But by all means ... Tesla not maintaining 100%, all of the time, is the real problem here.

  78. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by afidel · · Score: 1

    Musk setting a neigh impossible stretch goal to try to get the most out of his people and suppliers and then falling a little short is his modus operandi, anyone who invested in TSLA without realizing that is a fool who deserves to have their money taken by people with a clue. It's because he's willing to fail that he's pushing three industries (transportation, energy, and spaceflight) forward simultaneously.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  79. Re:To understand this - just follow the money by BritImp · · Score: 1

    According to the Media Research Center, CNN's major advertisers include:

    Alfa Romeo
    American Petroleum Institute
    Audi
    BMW
    Cars.com
    Exxon Mobil
    Infiniti
    Lexus
    Mini Cooper
    Mercedes

    That represents a fairly substantial block of their revenue who all make their profits from non-electric automotive sources. Could all that advertising revenue color CNN's views a bit?

    Also, lets not forget:

    "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 them 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 short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in 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 know neither victory nor defeat."
    â" Theodore Roosevelt

  80. No! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    So they posted stuff that was inaccurate...

    So they posted stuff that was deliberately misleading...

    bold mine...

    1. Re:No! by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      ...and then retracted it

      bold mine...

      Anyways, what news sources to you rate above them?

  81. Re:What they actually want by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    They actually want whatever they can get.

  82. Re:Guess they are not big into the whole news thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tried too, unfortunately they were not as high profile as Tesla so they barely rated a mention and were not considered by SA and as the SA government really doesn't give a shit about people or cost they went with the option that gave them the most press.

  83. There is one area where Elon under promises and ov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And itâ(TM)s litigation. It takes a big player to criticize any business of Musk because youâ(TM)re going to be sued, lawyer-threatened or accused of lying, even if itâ(TM)s Elon who was caught spewing BS all around

  84. Well..... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    ..... I love his ambitions but his time lines for all this stuff is WAY off. Man on Mars by 2024? NO way. Never going to happen by then. Smart guy but he needs to tone down the time lines.

  85. Re: after Trillions have been spent to subsidize g by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Implement a true "all the above" energy strategy.

    You mean keep on merrily burning fossil fuels and pretending that climate change isn't a problem. Keep pretending that massive floods, droughts, forest fires and powerful are totally free, as opposed to costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

    How about no.

    You want to reduce oil spills? Then build more pipelines, they don't spill near as often as ships, trucks, or trains.

    Uh, no. All pipelines spill. All the time. Spills where happening just in North Dakota during the DAPL protests. You want to avoid spills? Leave it in the ground.

    Then build nuclear power plants.

    You mean switch to the most obscenely expensive power source ever invented by man, saddling the next few hundred generations with cleanup costs? Let's say that nuclear power will never ever have another accident again, ever. It is still completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. Building out a network of wind and solar power with hydrostatic batteries to back it up - and then burning $50 billion dollars in the street - would be more justifiable than building a nuclear power plant.