Most people (not all, but most), I'd dare say, don't want to own an extra vehicle that they only use when making extended trips, and don't want to deal with renting a vehicle if they can just as easily own one, spending a loss less money than they would spend buying an EV.
That's an interesting approach to what was actually a very well-presented argument... discounting the argument by saying "that's not important", without actually saying *why* it's not important. Clearly it's not important to you, but equally clearly, it's important to the above poster... what makes your opinion more valid than the alternative? And personally, I'd dare say that it's actually also important to most people or else the notion of range anxiety wouldn't be a serious problem in the first place, as the poster stated.
C) 1000 miles on a charge? Show me any common car that gets anything like that range.
One can easily drive 1000 miles in a single day in a conventional vehicle. Of course, one will have to stop for gas along the way, of course, but a fill-up on gasoline only takes a few minutes, compared to several hours for a battery recharge.
Or, they could have 2 EVs, and a third gas car reserved solely for longer trips.
Or... for *WAY* less money, they could just have two cars that they can use for anything that they want, and not bother owning something they hardly ever use.
Perhaps you missed one of the points that I had mentioned, above, where I suggested that it would be most beneficial if an EV did *NOT* carry such a high premium. If a married couple is wanting to own two cars anyways, two vehicles that they can comfortably afford that both do everything that they need is going to make more sense than one vehicle that is so expensive that owning a second one, if they even still can, means having to settle for something that doesn't meet all of their needs at all, or buying a piece of crap car that they risk not even lasting until they finish paying it off.
You can't use a Tesla to travel 1200 km in one day... if you get an early start, you can do that quite easily in a conventional car, even including stops for gas, bathroom breaks, and meals (I do this every few years, in fact, whenever I travel across country to visit family). A great deal about owning your own car is about having the personal freedom to go anywhere you choose, and to do so entirely on your own schedule otherwise one may as well just rent a vehicle when they need one and spend a lot less money). I don't want to own two cars, so I will own one car that gets me absolutely everywhere that I might want to be, with the advantage that I don't have to rent a second car if I want to go anywhere outside of commuting range. If you think that this view puts me in the minority, well... let the figures for the number of electric vehicles on the road vs gasoline cars tell the real story.
I have no doubt that the E model will attract many more buyers.... but it's not going to put the final writing on the wall for gasoline cars. I'd expect it's not even going to make a statistically significant difference in the number of EV's vs gasoline cars on the road. I would love almost nothing more than to live to see the end of that hundred plus year era of the gasoline automobile, and Tesla, or any other current or future EV company accomplishing all of what I've mentioned above could probably achieve that.
As more info is discovered, exactly how earth-like the planet is might be determined over time, giving future generations something to shoot for. *THAT* is exciting.
We'll get there someday... barring some disaster wiping us all out here first before we become interplanetary. I'd give it no more than another millennium, which might sound like a really long time, but bear in mind that half of that time is how long it would take *light* to travel that distance.
That's all very well and good if you are never planning on taking any road trips... if you ever want to travel, you are going to need another car anyways, and unless one is hemoraging wealth, it is more prudent for an individual to have only one automobile. It might as well be one that you can use wherever you want to go.
Tesla has made an electric vehicle that doesn't make anyone with a sense of style want to puke, and that's a very good thing, but there's just a handful of things they need to do, IMO, to really knock the ball out of the park for electric cars:
1) One needs to be able to charge it quickly, perhaps with an upper limit of about 10 minutes or so, sufficiently to go approximately as far as one could expect go on a tank of gas in a typical car of today. I would not expect to be able to charge it this quickly on conventional house current... it probably would require a dedicated type of charging circuit. But this would make recharging a car at such places not significantly more time consuming than filling up a car with gas, and would make owning an electric vehicle vastly more convenient than it currently is.
2) Charging infrastructure needs to be ubquitous, so that if you can drive there in a regular vehicle, you should be able to get there and back in your electric car as well.
3) The pricing structure for an electric car should be comparable to that of an otherwise similarly equipped gas-powered vehicle... and should not carry a premium cost that is almost equivalent to buying an additional automobile. Making them affordable, in addition to the other two points, will mean that there's no reason for people not to drive one.
If or when Tesla, or any electric vehicle manufacturer, can hit all three of the above points, I'd dare say that the writing will finally be on the wall for the age of gasoline, and I think electric cars could outnumber gasoline vehicles on the road within a decade.
Actually, at near light speed, time slows down, so a person who embarks on a journey in a spaceship capable of moving near enough to the speed of light could conceivably reach a destination many hundreds or even thousands of light years away in their own lifetime.
Of course, everyone that they left behind and ever knew will be long gone.
... Leaving aside the irony, of course, that the above post itself is rather full of gramatical mistakes (most notably, a spelling error, and inappropriate usage of commas), I'm still correct about the issue of whether or not it is acceptable to use 's' to pluralize lego. (accidentall hit the submit button instead of preview)
As I said, it's no more correct using an 's' to pluralize LEGO than it is to pluralize words like sheep... other examples of such words are deer, moose, swine, and aircraft. Putting an s on the end is gramatically incorrect, the word is both singular *and* plural. (most correcty, in fact, LEGO, when not being used to refer to the company itself, is actually a mass noun, and is comparable to words like 'snow', where the notion of "pluralizing" it doesn't even make any sense).
They aren't the same literal acts... but both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief. Whether you kill or simply beat up, both are ultimately violent acts spawned from nothing less than the exact same hatred of things that are different.
The all-caps usage is acceptable... but in addition to being the company name, Lego (or LEGO) is a word that refers to any number of individual pieces, Adding an s on the end to pluralize it is about as correct as putting an 's' after words like sheep.
I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.
I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a situation where Mr. Aldrin did not have the physical freedom to ignore him or walk away (since he and his camera crew simply followed him when he tried). That said, I think Mr. Aldrin should have told them to leave him alone, or he would place harassment charges on them if they tried to follow. It's not like he wouldn't have had a legitimate case against them.
Anyways.... supposedly, human beings are a civilization... so maybe people should try acting civilized. Your neighbor being an asshole should never be any justification for you to be one. See ethical vigilantism (point 12) on the ethics scoreboard.
Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?
Your stats are wrong... there are 30 firearms per HUNDRED people in Canada.
A (slightly) higher percentage of Canadians have firearms than Americans, but the difference in statistics comes from the fact that most people in the US who are armed in the first place possess multiple firearms.
I'd dare say not so much "hopeful", but perhaps "morbidly curious" would be the more accurate term.
Obviously such an overreaction would be wrong on every level, but when a person has actually attempted non-violent means to deal with a problem and only faced grief over it, doesn't that indicate that there's something already wrong with the system?
Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state, so by my understanding of wiretapping laws there, what this kid did was illegal.
Now, this isn't something I would want to see, but I am morbidly curious about what would happen if somebody tried a mechanism like this after being a victim of being bullied, got charged with wiretapping... and then when it happened again, the victim decides to simply kill the bullies in retaliation.
Now clearly, homicide would probably be considered "excessive force" as a means of dealing with bullying, but I think that this hypothetical scenario also shows that two-party or all-party consent requirements for recording might be broken. If a person tries non-violent means to get the matter dealt with, and only gets punished for it... then what difference should it make, in that sense, whether they resort to violent extremes anyways?
In Pennsylvania, if you secretly record somebody who is committing a crime, then instead of being considered helpful to the police by providing it as evidence, you would be be considered guilty of another crime yourself (which would then suggest to me that the video could not be used as evidence.... which would strike me me as pretty amazing if the crime that was recorded were heinous enough).
Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.
That's perfectly fine, but in practice, the HR people are the only ones that you are ever going to have a chance of seeing until you've done something to get yourself noticed by somebody higher up.
If you have connections that can get you past HR without any hassle, that's all very well and good... but not everyone is so well connected.
I decided to double-check that point on a government web site, and in fact, all "slower traffic keep right" signs mean is that the road is expected to accomodate a variety of vehicles which may be moving at various speeds (and of course, by law, all of them should be at or below the posted limit), and where the inner lanes are reserved exclusively for vehicles that are travelling at or very near the posted speed limit, other vehicles which may need to travel more slowly are advised to use the outside lane. Slow moving vehicles travelling below the posted limit are forbidden from using the left lane except where it is necessary for a left turn, but under no circumstances is a vehicle going the posted limit prohibited from using the lane, even if other vehicles around them are speeding.
"Keep right except to pass" is another sign which only occurs where an auxiliary lane has been added to a highway for passing purposes only. Usually, the roadway expands in width, with the lane markings shifting the existing lanes slightly to the right, making room for a new lane on the left, similar to what you mgiht find near an intersection having a dedicated left-turning lane All lanes to the right of this new lane are permitted for regular driving, however. The auxiliarly lane is usually of limited length, and the purpose of the sign is to caution drivers who might otherwise expect to be able to utilize the additional lane for regular cruising.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people (not all, but most), I'd dare say, don't want to own an extra vehicle that they only use when making extended trips, and don't want to deal with renting a vehicle if they can just as easily own one, spending a loss less money than they would spend buying an EV.
That's an interesting approach to what was actually a very well-presented argument... discounting the argument by saying "that's not important", without actually saying *why* it's not important. Clearly it's not important to you, but equally clearly, it's important to the above poster... what makes your opinion more valid than the alternative? And personally, I'd dare say that it's actually also important to most people or else the notion of range anxiety wouldn't be a serious problem in the first place, as the poster stated.
One can easily drive 1000 miles in a single day in a conventional vehicle. Of course, one will have to stop for gas along the way, of course, but a fill-up on gasoline only takes a few minutes, compared to several hours for a battery recharge.
Or... for *WAY* less money, they could just have two cars that they can use for anything that they want, and not bother owning something they hardly ever use.
Which is my entire point.
Perhaps you missed one of the points that I had mentioned, above, where I suggested that it would be most beneficial if an EV did *NOT* carry such a high premium. If a married couple is wanting to own two cars anyways, two vehicles that they can comfortably afford that both do everything that they need is going to make more sense than one vehicle that is so expensive that owning a second one, if they even still can, means having to settle for something that doesn't meet all of their needs at all, or buying a piece of crap car that they risk not even lasting until they finish paying it off.
You can't use a Tesla to travel 1200 km in one day... if you get an early start, you can do that quite easily in a conventional car, even including stops for gas, bathroom breaks, and meals (I do this every few years, in fact, whenever I travel across country to visit family). A great deal about owning your own car is about having the personal freedom to go anywhere you choose, and to do so entirely on your own schedule otherwise one may as well just rent a vehicle when they need one and spend a lot less money). I don't want to own two cars, so I will own one car that gets me absolutely everywhere that I might want to be, with the advantage that I don't have to rent a second car if I want to go anywhere outside of commuting range. If you think that this view puts me in the minority, well... let the figures for the number of electric vehicles on the road vs gasoline cars tell the real story.
I have no doubt that the E model will attract many more buyers.... but it's not going to put the final writing on the wall for gasoline cars. I'd expect it's not even going to make a statistically significant difference in the number of EV's vs gasoline cars on the road. I would love almost nothing more than to live to see the end of that hundred plus year era of the gasoline automobile, and Tesla, or any other current or future EV company accomplishing all of what I've mentioned above could probably achieve that.
As more info is discovered, exactly how earth-like the planet is might be determined over time, giving future generations something to shoot for. *THAT* is exciting.
We'll get there someday... barring some disaster wiping us all out here first before we become interplanetary. I'd give it no more than another millennium, which might sound like a really long time, but bear in mind that half of that time is how long it would take *light* to travel that distance.
That's all very well and good if you are never planning on taking any road trips... if you ever want to travel, you are going to need another car anyways, and unless one is hemoraging wealth, it is more prudent for an individual to have only one automobile. It might as well be one that you can use wherever you want to go.
Knowing its out there somewhere and actually finding something that fits the criteria are two different things.
Tesla has made an electric vehicle that doesn't make anyone with a sense of style want to puke, and that's a very good thing, but there's just a handful of things they need to do, IMO, to really knock the ball out of the park for electric cars:
1) One needs to be able to charge it quickly, perhaps with an upper limit of about 10 minutes or so, sufficiently to go approximately as far as one could expect go on a tank of gas in a typical car of today. I would not expect to be able to charge it this quickly on conventional house current... it probably would require a dedicated type of charging circuit. But this would make recharging a car at such places not significantly more time consuming than filling up a car with gas, and would make owning an electric vehicle vastly more convenient than it currently is.
2) Charging infrastructure needs to be ubquitous, so that if you can drive there in a regular vehicle, you should be able to get there and back in your electric car as well.
3) The pricing structure for an electric car should be comparable to that of an otherwise similarly equipped gas-powered vehicle... and should not carry a premium cost that is almost equivalent to buying an additional automobile. Making them affordable, in addition to the other two points, will mean that there's no reason for people not to drive one.
If or when Tesla, or any electric vehicle manufacturer, can hit all three of the above points, I'd dare say that the writing will finally be on the wall for the age of gasoline, and I think electric cars could outnumber gasoline vehicles on the road within a decade.
Why do you figure that actually having life should be a criteria for being earth-like? Like does not have to mean "exactly the same as".
Actually, at near light speed, time slows down, so a person who embarks on a journey in a spaceship capable of moving near enough to the speed of light could conceivably reach a destination many hundreds or even thousands of light years away in their own lifetime.
Of course, everyone that they left behind and ever knew will be long gone.
I think that depends on whether or not you think that creatures who have human beings as evolutionary ancestors would count as human.
... Leaving aside the irony, of course, that the above post itself is rather full of gramatical mistakes (most notably, a spelling error, and inappropriate usage of commas), I'm still correct about the issue of whether or not it is acceptable to use 's' to pluralize lego. (accidentall hit the submit button instead of preview)
As I said, it's no more correct using an 's' to pluralize LEGO than it is to pluralize words like sheep... other examples of such words are deer, moose, swine, and aircraft. Putting an s on the end is gramatically incorrect, the word is both singular *and* plural. (most correcty, in fact, LEGO, when not being used to refer to the company itself, is actually a mass noun, and is comparable to words like 'snow', where the notion of "pluralizing" it doesn't even make any sense).
They aren't the same literal acts... but both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief. Whether you kill or simply beat up, both are ultimately violent acts spawned from nothing less than the exact same hatred of things that are different.
The all-caps usage is acceptable... but in addition to being the company name, Lego (or LEGO) is a word that refers to any number of individual pieces, Adding an s on the end to pluralize it is about as correct as putting an 's' after words like sheep.
I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.
I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a situation where Mr. Aldrin did not have the physical freedom to ignore him or walk away (since he and his camera crew simply followed him when he tried). That said, I think Mr. Aldrin should have told them to leave him alone, or he would place harassment charges on them if they tried to follow. It's not like he wouldn't have had a legitimate case against them.
Anyways.... supposedly, human beings are a civilization... so maybe people should try acting civilized. Your neighbor being an asshole should never be any justification for you to be one. See ethical vigilantism (point 12) on the ethics scoreboard.
Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?
Your stats are wrong... there are 30 firearms per HUNDRED people in Canada.
A (slightly) higher percentage of Canadians have firearms than Americans, but the difference in statistics comes from the fact that most people in the US who are armed in the first place possess multiple firearms.
I'd dare say not so much "hopeful", but perhaps "morbidly curious" would be the more accurate term.
Obviously such an overreaction would be wrong on every level, but when a person has actually attempted non-violent means to deal with a problem and only faced grief over it, doesn't that indicate that there's something already wrong with the system?
Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state, so by my understanding of wiretapping laws there, what this kid did was illegal.
Now, this isn't something I would want to see, but I am morbidly curious about what would happen if somebody tried a mechanism like this after being a victim of being bullied, got charged with wiretapping... and then when it happened again, the victim decides to simply kill the bullies in retaliation.
Now clearly, homicide would probably be considered "excessive force" as a means of dealing with bullying, but I think that this hypothetical scenario also shows that two-party or all-party consent requirements for recording might be broken. If a person tries non-violent means to get the matter dealt with, and only gets punished for it... then what difference should it make, in that sense, whether they resort to violent extremes anyways?
In Pennsylvania, if you secretly record somebody who is committing a crime, then instead of being considered helpful to the police by providing it as evidence, you would be be considered guilty of another crime yourself (which would then suggest to me that the video could not be used as evidence.... which would strike me me as pretty amazing if the crime that was recorded were heinous enough).
Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.
That's perfectly fine, but in practice, the HR people are the only ones that you are ever going to have a chance of seeing until you've done something to get yourself noticed by somebody higher up.
If you have connections that can get you past HR without any hassle, that's all very well and good... but not everyone is so well connected.
I decided to double-check that point on a government web site, and in fact, all "slower traffic keep right" signs mean is that the road is expected to accomodate a variety of vehicles which may be moving at various speeds (and of course, by law, all of them should be at or below the posted limit), and where the inner lanes are reserved exclusively for vehicles that are travelling at or very near the posted speed limit, other vehicles which may need to travel more slowly are advised to use the outside lane. Slow moving vehicles travelling below the posted limit are forbidden from using the left lane except where it is necessary for a left turn, but under no circumstances is a vehicle going the posted limit prohibited from using the lane, even if other vehicles around them are speeding.
"Keep right except to pass" is another sign which only occurs where an auxiliary lane has been added to a highway for passing purposes only. Usually, the roadway expands in width, with the lane markings shifting the existing lanes slightly to the right, making room for a new lane on the left, similar to what you mgiht find near an intersection having a dedicated left-turning lane All lanes to the right of this new lane are permitted for regular driving, however. The auxiliarly lane is usually of limited length, and the purpose of the sign is to caution drivers who might otherwise expect to be able to utilize the additional lane for regular cruising.