So, the article* talks about 3 different models, the S, the X, and the E, in a very mercurial way, that leaves me asking more questions than I got answers to...
- What's the projected price point for the Model X?
- What are the features/specs of the Model E, other than the (currently vaporware-based) price point?
- What will be the price difference between a current Model S and one of the new ones with all the fancy new additions, like AWD and hill assist?
Really, TFA reads more like a press release written by a schizophrenic, than the results of a "town hall" Q&A sesssion.
Which doesn't surprise me, considering the source is greencarreports.com.
* No, I don't watch the videos on articles. If you can't be bothered to type out the transcript, I can't be bothered to care.
Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:
"Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."
So.. it's vaporware. That's what we call it when a company pontificates about the amazing advancements of their not-yet-invented technology, right?
Here's another, less 'vapor-y' statement from TFA:
The Model X will actually have a lower drag coefficient than the super-slick Model S. But because of its increased frontal area, the total drag will be higher. Combined with a slightly heavier weight, the Model X will have an energy consumption about 10 percent higher than the Model S. (Musk did not say whether the Model X battery size would be increased in order to maintain the same range as the Model S.)
So, it's going to be heavier, create more drag, and use more energy (and thus, probably have a lower range) than a Tesla S. Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.
It's there with the graphic - American Water Works Association Research Foundation, "Residential End Uses of Water". 1999.
Personally, I don't really consider a source very valid unless they give you access to the research they based their conclusions on; been burned too many times for trusting a reporting agency to not include bias.
A bit old - I'd prefer within the last decade, but I generally prefer government sources for this sort of thing.
I generally do too, except when they won't let me see the exact figures themselves. Again, been burned too often to fall for that one anymore.
Commenting is certainly not an afterthought. It's at the top of our list for things that need more work. We know you come to the site for the comments (as we ourselves did back in the '90s).
So... You've known all along that the main reason we come here for the discussions; the beta's been going on for what, the better part of a year? And commenting is still horrifically broken.
Not to bust your chops, but that's kinda the definition of an afterthought, bro.
Car analogy time: I have gotten rid of vehicles that sucked less than the Slashdot beta. Seriously even that '85 Bronco II where everything was rusty, none of the body panels matched, and that had bad compression on the #5 cylinder sucked less than beta.slashdot.org.
I have gotten rid of vehicles that sucked less than the Slashdot beta. Seriously even that '85 Bronco II where everything was rusty, none of the body panels matched, and that had bad compression on the #5 cylinder sucked less than beta.slashdot.org.
Yeah..I've heard that about Bronco's.. seems like they haven't had a good run for years
Suddenly I wish I hadn't commented on this thread...
It's an impossibility to act on it all, since some users want exactly the opposite of other users,
What, you mean there are people who actually like the redesign?
Don't get me wrong the "new version" is more visually engaging (in the way that a lot of default Wordpress themes are), but if you've been involved in Slashdot for more than the last 30 seconds, you know that the community here cares far less about visual stimuli than we do for the communication we share in the discussion threads.
Make whatever excuses you want, but so long as commenting is treated as an afterthought in the redesign, you're making it plain to us that you don't care what we think.
Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.
That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.
This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.
So... source?
Not that I do or don't believe you, but we wouldn't want someone to accuse you of perpetrating any 'propaganda bullshit.'
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
Depends on the details. If the alternative is getting pushed in yourself, then while I would hope a person would have the moral strength to refuse to commit murder, I'm not going to castigate someone for choosing their own life.
So, then, you would exonerate a person who, by their own hand, murdered thousands of innocent people, just because they give the excuse of "well, it was them or me?"
Sorry, but I think that worldview is royally fucked. Cowardice is a character flaw that should be punished, not fucking honored. Especially when the aforementioned coward has a direct hand in harming others, because of their chickenshit nature.
If yours is a majority attitude, no wonder the government bends us over and collectively ass-rapes us on a regular basis.
Of course it's a little difficult to get such evidence because you'd be hard-pressed to find any area willing to try it. Why would that be? ( I know, because it's a money-maker, right?:) )
Didn't even bother to google "states with no speed limit," did you?
[A 2001 study by the National Motorists Association] shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.
The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.
Now, if you're not going to bother to do the tiniest bit of research before responding, why should I listen to anything else you might have to say?
Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.
Now, now.. no need to get all ad hominem about it.
That's not an ad hominem, as it is not an "irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument;" your entire last post, however, would fit the qualification, as your suspicions about how people might behave in lieu of speed limits have no relevance in reality.
No, it was a reference to my belief that you are transferring the specter of your own bad habits on others, as a justification for your position, typical of human nature. Don't like it? Don't present ridiculous assumptions as facts.
By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."
Wait.. what rights were we talking about? (Before I make a similar logical leap and decide you were suggesting that speeding is a right.)
I presume you're playing stupid here, but that may just be a result of my new-found desire to see the best in people (there's your ad hominem, BTW.).
Your unfounded post assumes that without speed limits/traps, the majority of people would drive like insane morons; you use this assumption as the basis for your argument that speed limits/traps are needed. Extrapolate that to other realms of human existence, and you'll begin to see what I mean.
Oh, and for the record, travelling freely very much is a right in this country.
Back to the matter at hand.. I think you can find plenty of studies that find that if something is not being enforced, that something quickly gets disregarded
See above link regarding Montana.
- and while I'm sure there are plenty of people who have the healthy judgment required to decide on when to speed, where to speed, and how much to speed - there's always those who lack that judgment, not to mention the people who don't partake but at least don't expect somebody to be speeding and may react surprised when they find that a safe maneuver is perhaps not so safe by the introduction of another member of traffic into the situation earlier than expected.
Aaaaaand we come back to "limiting rights because stupid people exist." Well hell, why not ban cars in general? That would drop the accident rate to zero.
If and only if there's no enforcement of speed limits in any way shape or form, it only takes one such accident for people to wonder why there is no such enforcement. Not that absurd. Now if I said everybody started treating the roads like a demolition derby and before you know it vehicular manslaughter is turned into a spectator sport.. well that'd be more like it:)
I told you about Montana, right?
You really should have done a little Googling before you posted all this nonsense.
Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted limit above that, as is more common).
Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.
Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.
By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."
If you're white and middle-aged enough, and you can bait the cop into doing something stupid enough, and you can get the ACLU involved, and you can prove it,
Traffic tickets need to cite what law was broken. Officers can't write tickets for random activities and then let a judge decide later.
In this case it was "[a] state law that prohibits motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights, even though it's not clear that the lights Kintner used were after-market" which is clearly bullshit. It does not align with what the person did at all. I am impressed that the officer knew local code well enough to cite that specifically on the ticket.
FYI, Unauthorized use of aftermarket emergency lights is illegal statewide in MO. You can't even use ground-effect lights or strobes of any kind while operating on a public street.
Still impressive that a cop actually knows the law...
This is why I laugh when I read articles about self-driving cars and car-to-car communication. The police will hate this because it will absolutely ruin ticket revenue.
No, no, see, the car-to-car communications they like, because it basically means your private property will now tattle on you every time you so much as bump your speedo 1 MPH over the legal limit, or take a corner just a bit too fast (for their tastes).
Slashdot Mirror
AWD is not standard. Says so right on their website. http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... Scroll all the way to the bottom.
So, then TFA is wrong when it says
Consequence of the source, I suppose? Why the hell do people keep linking greencarreports articles when they're so poorly researched?
So, the article* talks about 3 different models, the S, the X, and the E, in a very mercurial way, that leaves me asking more questions than I got answers to...
- What's the projected price point for the Model X?
- What are the features/specs of the Model E, other than the (currently vaporware-based) price point?
- What will be the price difference between a current Model S and one of the new ones with all the fancy new additions, like AWD and hill assist?
Really, TFA reads more like a press release written by a schizophrenic, than the results of a "town hall" Q&A sesssion.
Which doesn't surprise me, considering the source is greencarreports.com.
* No, I don't watch the videos on articles. If you can't be bothered to type out the transcript, I can't be bothered to care.
Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:
"Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."
So.. it's vaporware. That's what we call it when a company pontificates about the amazing advancements of their not-yet-invented technology, right?
Here's another, less 'vapor-y' statement from TFA:
The Model X will actually have a lower drag coefficient than the super-slick Model S. But because of its increased frontal area, the total drag will be higher. Combined with a slightly heavier weight, the Model X will have an energy consumption about 10 percent higher than the Model S. (Musk did not say whether the Model X battery size would be increased in order to maintain the same range as the Model S.)
So, it's going to be heavier, create more drag, and use more energy (and thus, probably have a lower range) than a Tesla S. Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.
For less than half the price of the Model S.
Color me skeptical.
It's Boom and Bust.
There's no OR about it, one precedes the other.
It's pretty pessimistic to think humans aren't intelligent enough to invent ways of doing all of that without unacceptable levels of pollution.
Especially considering that we somehow managed it for several hundred thousand years.
Yes because clearly political ideology is exactly as unchangeable as one's race or country of origins.
Talk about bait and switch.
So then, it's true - all Democrats are soulless communists who murder babies and hate the Constitution.
Here of my own accord, actually.
Ah - so, less official mandate, more masochism. Should have known you like the abuse :)
Timothy has been responding to a ton of emails -- mainly the ones with bug reports and constructive suggestions.
Can you define "constructive suggestions?" Perhaps provide an example or two?
In my younger days it often meant "1500 Sheep on the road around the next bend"
No offense, dude, but I really don't want to hear the sordid details of your bachelor's party...
Maybe we're just not using the right one.
Reddit.... /cry
The way things are going, pretty soon /b/ will seem a better alternative for discourse.
You see that, Slashdot/Dice puppetmasters? Do you see what you're doing to us?
Someone, please, think of the children, and scuttle that abomination unto humanity known as beta.slashdot.org!
I'm surprised with the amount of protesting under each story there hasn't been a response from Dice.
Soulskill was responding to posts a bit ago, I'm guessing that task was handed down from on high.
Hopefully he's stopped, for the sake of his own sanity.
It's there with the graphic - American Water Works Association Research Foundation, "Residential End Uses of Water". 1999.
Personally, I don't really consider a source very valid unless they give you access to the research they based their conclusions on; been burned too many times for trusting a reporting agency to not include bias.
A bit old - I'd prefer within the last decade, but I generally prefer government sources for this sort of thing.
I generally do too, except when they won't let me see the exact figures themselves. Again, been burned too often to fall for that one anymore.
Commenting is certainly not an afterthought. It's at the top of our list for things that need more work. We know you come to the site for the comments (as we ourselves did back in the '90s).
So... You've known all along that the main reason we come here for the discussions; the beta's been going on for what, the better part of a year? And commenting is still horrifically broken.
Not to bust your chops, but that's kinda the definition of an afterthought, bro.
Car analogy time:
I have gotten rid of vehicles that sucked less than the Slashdot beta. Seriously even that '85 Bronco II where everything was rusty, none of the body panels matched, and that had bad compression on the #5 cylinder sucked less than beta.slashdot.org.
Bronco's never run well
Not since 1994, anyway.
Remember - if the glove doesn't fit, Slashdot Beta still sucks.
Car analogy time:
I have gotten rid of vehicles that sucked less than the Slashdot beta. Seriously even that '85 Bronco II where everything was rusty, none of the body panels matched, and that had bad compression on the #5 cylinder sucked less than beta.slashdot.org.
Yeah ..I've heard that about Bronco's .. seems like they haven't had a good run for years
Suddenly I wish I hadn't commented on this thread...
+5 Zing!
(feel free to get drunk and naked while posting)
Uh, excuse me, but I'm at work.
Meaning the drunken nudity is a foregone conclusion :)
Works pretty well for keeping the marketing drones away from my cube.
It's an impossibility to act on it all, since some users want exactly the opposite of other users,
What, you mean there are people who actually like the redesign?
Don't get me wrong the "new version" is more visually engaging (in the way that a lot of default Wordpress themes are), but if you've been involved in Slashdot for more than the last 30 seconds, you know that the community here cares far less about visual stimuli than we do for the communication we share in the discussion threads.
Make whatever excuses you want, but so long as commenting is treated as an afterthought in the redesign, you're making it plain to us that you don't care what we think.
10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?
Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons.
Any idea where the EPA came up with that figure? I don't see any source citation on their page...
Far be it from me to question the honesty of a government agency, but it's not like they haven't lied to us "for our own good" in the past.
Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.
That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.
This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.
So... source?
Not that I do or don't believe you, but we wouldn't want someone to accuse you of perpetrating any 'propaganda bullshit.'
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
Depends on the details. If the alternative is getting pushed in yourself, then while I would hope a person would have the moral strength to refuse to commit murder, I'm not going to castigate someone for choosing their own life.
So, then, you would exonerate a person who, by their own hand, murdered thousands of innocent people, just because they give the excuse of "well, it was them or me?"
Sorry, but I think that worldview is royally fucked. Cowardice is a character flaw that should be punished, not fucking honored. Especially when the aforementioned coward has a direct hand in harming others, because of their chickenshit nature.
If yours is a majority attitude, no wonder the government bends us over and collectively ass-rapes us on a regular basis.
Of course it's a little difficult to get such evidence because you'd be hard-pressed to find any area willing to try it. Why would that be? ( I know, because it's a money-maker, right? :) )
Didn't even bother to google "states with no speed limit," did you?
http://www.motorists.org/press...
From the article:
[A 2001 study by the National Motorists Association] shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.
The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.
Now, if you're not going to bother to do the tiniest bit of research before responding, why should I listen to anything else you might have to say?
Now, now.. no need to get all ad hominem about it.
That's not an ad hominem, as it is not an "irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument;" your entire last post, however, would fit the qualification, as your suspicions about how people might behave in lieu of speed limits have no relevance in reality.
No, it was a reference to my belief that you are transferring the specter of your own bad habits on others, as a justification for your position, typical of human nature. Don't like it? Don't present ridiculous assumptions as facts.
Wait.. what rights were we talking about? (Before I make a similar logical leap and decide you were suggesting that speeding is a right.)
I presume you're playing stupid here, but that may just be a result of my new-found desire to see the best in people (there's your ad hominem, BTW.).
Your unfounded post assumes that without speed limits/traps, the majority of people would drive like insane morons; you use this assumption as the basis for your argument that speed limits/traps are needed. Extrapolate that to other realms of human existence, and you'll begin to see what I mean.
Oh, and for the record, travelling freely very much is a right in this country.
Back to the matter at hand.. I think you can find plenty of studies that find that if something is not being enforced, that something quickly gets disregarded
See above link regarding Montana.
- and while I'm sure there are plenty of people who have the healthy judgment required to decide on when to speed, where to speed, and how much to speed - there's always those who lack that judgment, not to mention the people who don't partake but at least don't expect somebody to be speeding and may react surprised when they find that a safe maneuver is perhaps not so safe by the introduction of another member of traffic into the situation earlier than expected.
Aaaaaand we come back to "limiting rights because stupid people exist." Well hell, why not ban cars in general? That would drop the accident rate to zero.
If and only if there's no enforcement of speed limits in any way shape or form, it only takes one such accident for people to wonder why there is no such enforcement. Not that absurd. Now if I said everybody started treating the roads like a demolition derby and before you know it vehicular manslaughter is turned into a spectator sport.. well that'd be more like it :)
I told you about Montana, right?
You really should have done a little Googling before you posted all this nonsense.
Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted limit above that, as is more common).
Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.
Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.
By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."
Which is kinda stupid in itself.
If you're white and middle-aged enough, and you can bait the cop into doing something stupid enough, and you can get the ACLU involved, and you can prove it,
FTFY.
Traffic tickets need to cite what law was broken. Officers can't write tickets for random activities and then let a judge decide later.
In this case it was "[a] state law that prohibits motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights, even though it's not clear that the lights Kintner used were after-market" which is clearly bullshit. It does not align with what the person did at all. I am impressed that the officer knew local code well enough to cite that specifically on the ticket.
FYI, Unauthorized use of aftermarket emergency lights is illegal statewide in MO. You can't even use ground-effect lights or strobes of any kind while operating on a public street.
Still impressive that a cop actually knows the law...
This is why I laugh when I read articles about self-driving cars and car-to-car communication. The police will hate this because it will absolutely ruin ticket revenue.
No, no, see, the car-to-car communications they like, because it basically means your private property will now tattle on you every time you so much as bump your speedo 1 MPH over the legal limit, or take a corner just a bit too fast (for their tastes).