The F450 is a commercial vehicle built for a completely different purpose than a Tesla Model S
I'm not talking about purpose, I'm talking about price and popularity. I'm well aware that one is a truck, and one isn't.
The reactions of some folks goes a long way to proving my point, as they look at the comparison of the price, and read it as an attack upon pickup trucks. It isn't.
We had some folks in our neighborhood where the lady of the house had a "side business" and drove a Hummer or Escalade or Excursion, with a little magnetic sign placed on the rear of their "business" I never knew you needed an Excursion for a scented candle business - anyhow, it was always a scam, I think they just took the writeoffs, and folded the tent after a few years, then created another business.
Until the abuse became so bad they changed the laws.
Most pickups on the road in urban areas are either stripped down as the GP stated or they're just "manly" commuter vehicles. A lot like Hummers and the giant SUVs.
side note:
My wife calls the really outrageous ones "Penis compensation vehicles".
There's a fellow lives down the road from us who she swears had a terrible accident or something. He has a Dodge Ram, lifted and with humongous tires, dual 6 inch stack exhausts, needs a ladder to get into the cab, that never sees anything more strenuous than cruising around the city block.
It's called cherry picking. They're picking a selective vehicle and hoping nobody is aware of the vast differences between a Tesla (of any kind) and an F-450.
No, cherry picking is taking data out of context.
I specifically asked why no one is complaining about those very specific pickups. My comparison is the data.
And why, would I have done that? The answer is pretty simple. They are in the price range of the Teslas. No Pickup truck hate, I've owned a few in my time, and have nothing against them, although I do note that their popularity has raised the prices a bit beyond what I prefer to pay for something I'm going to beat.
I could have picked any other vehicle in that price range, but I chose pickup trucks because they are popular, and therefore the demand raises the price. And I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
"35 K is fine - I'm waiting for the 4wd trail rated version."
The model X ('crossover utility vehicle') is being launched sometime about now (I think a few hours ago.) As far as I know that is as close to 'trail rated' as they're currently planning to make. It probably has a price tag around $70k+ however. There is a 4wd version of the model S, so I expect model X will at least have that as an option, perhaps standard.
It's getting there. Crossovers are a start - although I suspect I'm being overly hopeful, Something along the line of a Jeep Grand Cherokee would be good.
Because they are utterly different vehicles for different uses. One is mostly a commuter car that spends the vast majority of its life in a garage or parking lot, and the other is a work vehicle where the owner's job often revolves around it.
Not that the F450 isn't overpriced, anyway. But people on/. don't talk about it because people on/. mostly don't live in the rural Midwest.
In my work parking lot, there are a lot of Pickups, including dually rears, that have never been off road, nor used for anything more strenuous than grocery shopping.
the trucks that work for a living are mostly stripped down models that cost a whole lot less.
Even then - it's okay that people want to spend a lot of money on a truck. It's their money. I don't care
Same as with a Tesla. Slashdotters seem to really care about the money spent on that however.
That would be me. What's the point of buying a self driving car if I have to hover over the steering wheel in case it gets confused? If I can't read or sleep or surf the web I may as well drive.
This! If I have to just sit there, ready to take the wheel if there is an emergency - what the hell is the point? That would be so boring they would probably have to implement one of those buttons you have to press every 20 seconds, or the car will shut down, like they do on that one train line in Australia.
I really don't have a problem with things like assistance to stay in a lane, or radar to stop people tailgating, but if I have to hand over control and just sit there bored , there's not much point, just a punishment.
Not everybody has a power outlet where they park at home.
Why do you keep beating that one? What individual vehicle satisfies 100 percent of people needs or things they don't have? So now Tesla shouldn't be allowed to sell their vehicle because someone in New York City doesn't have a parking space with a charger?? Most people there don't have a parking space at all.
I drive Jeeps because of where and when I drive. A Ferrari won't work for me. But if you want one - have at it.
What you're looking for is the Model 3 which does not yet exist, but has been Tesla's goal since inception. Everything we've seen up until now has been primarily done to gain experience and fund development towards the Model 3.
The Model 3 doesn't quite hit your targets - price US$35k, range 320km.
I have a question though for the naysayers.
Why is the Tesla considered ridiculously overpriced, yet a pickup truck like the 2010 Ford F450 at over 64 thousand, is never mentioned by those who have an aneurysm when they hear the word "Tesla" mentioned? They don't even give a gas milage Here's a nice little list of acceptable and economical vehicles unlike the Tesla:http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/most-expensive-cars/trucks/
35 K is fine - I'm waiting for the 4wd trail rated version.
All she needs to do now is demand we teach creationism, Nuking the Mexian rapists, and burning gays at the stakes like they used to do before liberals emerged from hell and took over the world, and she's a shoo-in for the Presidential nomination>
Maybe put cameras in everyone's bedrooms - but please gawd, not hers!
Fuck you, asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse? Please, don't hate.
Who's hating? It is irrelevant whether I am an asshole or not, regardless. In a world where the overwheliming majority of professionals believe that the greenhouse effect scales, it isn't up to them to present the evidence again and again to every non-believer. If you want to disprove that the greenhouse effect scales, or that the earth is round, - it's your turn to produce the evidence.
By the way - "Bitch, please" simply means "come off it", or "face reality", - no comment on gender, or avocation, or personality.
But it allows you to express your rage pretty well. Swaer at me some more big boy - that's kinda hot.
When a daddy comet and a mommy comet love each other very much, they collide into each other and give birth to a baby comet that is much bigger than the two of them???? And it looks like a duck, which begs the question who's child it really is.
The classics are the oil guys that believe in a young earth and are told where to find it by geologists using ancient clues and evidence of change over millions of years.
I'd be pissed that gawd would make it so hard to get at.
list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
Looking at your tagline, can you produce pairs of links proving biblical prophecy, or the trickle-down effect, or job creation theory or the Austrian school of economics?
You're a political creature, one who believes winning an argument or debate makes you right. Physics doesn't work that way.
And can give the same links that prove that AGW doesn't exist?
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
Bitch, please. The proof has been presented, and denialists just dion't accept it. You need to prove it doesn't exist, the same as I don't need to prove that the earth isn't flat because you believe it is, or that the universe is old because you believe it was created in 4004 b.c.e. , or that creatures evolve. because you read a passage in a desert dwellers guidebook that says about creatures and their own kind. I'm not saying you personally believe any of that, but many do.
Because you see, I've read the reports that you also have access to. Virtually all of them say essentially that the effects of greenhouse warming, an effect that is critical to life, scales up. We would not exist without the greenhouse effect, so you have to tell us why in the face of overwhelming evidence, it doesn't exist, or what mitigates it.
The fact is, if you actually had any good research to offer, you'd be brandishing it around like a sledgehammer. Instead, ya got nothing, so you want spoon fed the freely available data, which you'll refuse to acknowledge anyhow.
Every single cherry picked bit of data the deniers pull out of their keister just spurs science on to explain and debunk their stupid idea that if one bit of odd data is odd, it means they've brought down the millions of pieces of correlating data. Wonder why they don't get some scientific types to prove it's wrong - wait, I know this one - a conspiracy.......
Creationist tactics - and I don't doubt many are creationists.
And _that_ is their evidence that global warming is a lie: taking a small part of evidence out of context, wilfully mis-interpreting it, and ignoring almost all the rest of the evidence.
Well - they are experts in lying, so they expect that everyone does.
I keep telling people Deniers, are just new versions of creationists. Same tactics, same lying, same denial of some pretty basic physics.
its just religious people seem to have developed it into an art.
I worked with a NucE who was a fundamentalist a full fledged. October, 4004 B.C.E, no evolution allowed Fundie.
The tap dancing needed in attempting to reconcile reality to a 4004 b.c.e. creation date for a nuclear engineer, is simply astonishing. He had to quite literally use and accept calculations and measurements as correct that he didn't believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
The F450 is a commercial vehicle built for a completely different purpose than a Tesla Model S
I'm not talking about purpose, I'm talking about price and popularity. I'm well aware that one is a truck, and one isn't.
The reactions of some folks goes a long way to proving my point, as they look at the comparison of the price, and read it as an attack upon pickup trucks. It isn't.
$35k - $7500 in tax credits.
Just out of curiosity, were you bothered by the tax breaks that Escalade owners used to get?
The section 179 loophole? http://www.section179.org/sect...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
We had some folks in our neighborhood where the lady of the house had a "side business" and drove a Hummer or Escalade or Excursion, with a little magnetic sign placed on the rear of their "business" I never knew you needed an Excursion for a scented candle business - anyhow, it was always a scam, I think they just took the writeoffs, and folded the tent after a few years, then created another business.
Until the abuse became so bad they changed the laws.
Most pickups on the road in urban areas are either stripped down as the GP stated or they're just "manly" commuter vehicles. A lot like Hummers and the giant SUVs.
side note: My wife calls the really outrageous ones "Penis compensation vehicles".
There's a fellow lives down the road from us who she swears had a terrible accident or something. He has a Dodge Ram, lifted and with humongous tires, dual 6 inch stack exhausts, needs a ladder to get into the cab, that never sees anything more strenuous than cruising around the city block.
It's called cherry picking. They're picking a selective vehicle and hoping nobody is aware of the vast differences between a Tesla (of any kind) and an F-450.
No, cherry picking is taking data out of context.
I specifically asked why no one is complaining about those very specific pickups. My comparison is the data.
And why, would I have done that? The answer is pretty simple. They are in the price range of the Teslas. No Pickup truck hate, I've owned a few in my time, and have nothing against them, although I do note that their popularity has raised the prices a bit beyond what I prefer to pay for something I'm going to beat.
I could have picked any other vehicle in that price range, but I chose pickup trucks because they are popular, and therefore the demand raises the price. And I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
"35 K is fine - I'm waiting for the 4wd trail rated version."
The model X ('crossover utility vehicle') is being launched sometime about now (I think a few hours ago.) As far as I know that is as close to 'trail rated' as they're currently planning to make. It probably has a price tag around $70k+ however. There is a 4wd version of the model S, so I expect model X will at least have that as an option, perhaps standard.
It's getting there. Crossovers are a start - although I suspect I'm being overly hopeful, Something along the line of a Jeep Grand Cherokee would be good.
Because they are utterly different vehicles for different uses. One is mostly a commuter car that spends the vast majority of its life in a garage or parking lot, and the other is a work vehicle where the owner's job often revolves around it.
Not that the F450 isn't overpriced, anyway. But people on /. don't talk about it because people on /. mostly don't live in the rural Midwest.
In my work parking lot, there are a lot of Pickups, including dually rears, that have never been off road, nor used for anything more strenuous than grocery shopping.
the trucks that work for a living are mostly stripped down models that cost a whole lot less.
Even then - it's okay that people want to spend a lot of money on a truck. It's their money. I don't care
Same as with a Tesla. Slashdotters seem to really care about the money spent on that however.
That would be me. What's the point of buying a self driving car if I have to hover over the steering wheel in case it gets confused? If I can't read or sleep or surf the web I may as well drive.
This! If I have to just sit there, ready to take the wheel if there is an emergency - what the hell is the point? That would be so boring they would probably have to implement one of those buttons you have to press every 20 seconds, or the car will shut down, like they do on that one train line in Australia.
I really don't have a problem with things like assistance to stay in a lane, or radar to stop people tailgating, but if I have to hand over control and just sit there bored , there's not much point, just a punishment.
Not everybody has a power outlet where they park at home.
Why do you keep beating that one? What individual vehicle satisfies 100 percent of people needs or things they don't have? So now Tesla shouldn't be allowed to sell their vehicle because someone in New York City doesn't have a parking space with a charger?? Most people there don't have a parking space at all.
I drive Jeeps because of where and when I drive. A Ferrari won't work for me. But if you want one - have at it.
Only if you have a home that can charge it where you are parked.
Not everybody lives in a house. In fact, in some cities, very few people do.
Well then, they don't buy one. Most people that live in those places don't have cars at all.
What you're looking for is the Model 3 which does not yet exist, but has been Tesla's goal since inception. Everything we've seen up until now has been primarily done to gain experience and fund development towards the Model 3.
The Model 3 doesn't quite hit your targets - price US$35k, range 320km.
I have a question though for the naysayers.
Why is the Tesla considered ridiculously overpriced, yet a pickup truck like the 2010 Ford F450 at over 64 thousand, is never mentioned by those who have an aneurysm when they hear the word "Tesla" mentioned? They don't even give a gas milage Here's a nice little list of acceptable and economical vehicles unlike the Tesla:http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/most-expensive-cars/trucks/
35 K is fine - I'm waiting for the 4wd trail rated version.
Maybe put cameras in everyone's bedrooms - but please gawd, not hers!
Fuck you, asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse? Please, don't hate.
Who's hating? It is irrelevant whether I am an asshole or not, regardless. In a world where the overwheliming majority of professionals believe that the greenhouse effect scales, it isn't up to them to present the evidence again and again to every non-believer. If you want to disprove that the greenhouse effect scales, or that the earth is round, - it's your turn to produce the evidence.
By the way - "Bitch, please" simply means "come off it", or "face reality", - no comment on gender, or avocation, or personality.
But it allows you to express your rage pretty well. Swaer at me some more big boy - that's kinda hot.
When a daddy comet and a mommy comet love each other very much, they collide into each other and give birth to a baby comet that is much bigger than the two of them???? And it looks like a duck, which begs the question who's child it really is.
Wow... that went down hill really fast.
Comets have no morals you know.
The classics are the oil guys that believe in a young earth and are told where to find it by geologists using ancient clues and evidence of change over millions of years.
I'd be pissed that gawd would make it so hard to get at.
list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
Looking at your tagline, can you produce pairs of links proving biblical prophecy, or the trickle-down effect, or job creation theory or the Austrian school of economics?
You're a political creature, one who believes winning an argument or debate makes you right. Physics doesn't work that way.
And can give the same links that prove that AGW doesn't exist?
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
Bitch, please. The proof has been presented, and denialists just dion't accept it. You need to prove it doesn't exist, the same as I don't need to prove that the earth isn't flat because you believe it is, or that the universe is old because you believe it was created in 4004 b.c.e. , or that creatures evolve. because you read a passage in a desert dwellers guidebook that says about creatures and their own kind. I'm not saying you personally believe any of that, but many do.
Because you see, I've read the reports that you also have access to. Virtually all of them say essentially that the effects of greenhouse warming, an effect that is critical to life, scales up. We would not exist without the greenhouse effect, so you have to tell us why in the face of overwhelming evidence, it doesn't exist, or what mitigates it.
The fact is, if you actually had any good research to offer, you'd be brandishing it around like a sledgehammer. Instead, ya got nothing, so you want spoon fed the freely available data, which you'll refuse to acknowledge anyhow.
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Easy to say when you are just talking trash.
Well, I have to talk to the audience.
Sure you do... have fun in fantasy land...
So it's a liar you are calling me.
Okay, awesome argument technique you have there,
asshole.
It would be like drinking rocket fuel.
The ultimate energy drink!
Great, as long as plants crave it.
Those damn tardigrades though. Ain't nobody messin with them. Not even entropy.
Cute little devils too. I've got a lot of them living in my roof gutters.
Dunno if you saw this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/12...
http://serc.carleton.edu/micro...
Since they've already survived in space, I suspect Mars would not be too difficult. I'm just not certain how much oxygen they need.
If this is in fact what is occurring then this isn't evidence against climate change, it was one of the more extreme predictions OF climate change.
I think the creationist - errrrrm - denialists's answer is "That Michael Mann is such a fucking Jerk! So much for global warming!"
Sorry, I keep getting denialists and creationists mixed up - probably the identical tactics.
Basically they are a passenger on the titanic saying "This ship can't be sinking, my end just rose 200 feet!".
--credit to a meme image I saw a while back: http://d.justpo.st/media/image...
Woot! I like it!.
Every single cherry picked bit of data the deniers pull out of their keister just spurs science on to explain and debunk their stupid idea that if one bit of odd data is odd, it means they've brought down the millions of pieces of correlating data. Wonder why they don't get some scientific types to prove it's wrong - wait, I know this one - a conspiracy.......
Creationist tactics - and I don't doubt many are creationists.
And _that_ is their evidence that global warming is a lie: taking a small part of evidence out of context, wilfully mis-interpreting it, and ignoring almost all the rest of the evidence.
Well - they are experts in lying, so they expect that everyone does.
I keep telling people Deniers, are just new versions of creationists. Same tactics, same lying, same denial of some pretty basic physics.
its just religious people seem to have developed it into an art.
I worked with a NucE who was a fundamentalist a full fledged. October, 4004 B.C.E, no evolution allowed Fundie.
The tap dancing needed in attempting to reconcile reality to a 4004 b.c.e. creation date for a nuclear engineer, is simply astonishing. He had to quite literally use and accept calculations and measurements as correct that he didn't believe in.
For the sake of all that is Holy, don't take those Answers in Genesis wackos as speaking for all Christians.
The no true whacko fallacy?