"It typically costs us $20,000-$30,000 to obtain a commercial-grade patent. As you can imagine, in a First- to-File country, as a startup, we could only file patents on a small fraction of the inventions at the time of conception."
"It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims"
I think its a huge mistake to assume that 'going green' is going to lower our standard of living, or that it will cost trillions. I've seen a Ted Talk where it actually raised our standard of living, produced jobs, increased tax revenue, etc... I think the time frame was something like 30 years to transition off of oil.
Oil pollutes, is a limited resource, and creates foreign dependencies. Aren't those enough reasons alone to at least begin to transition away from oil use?
What about if the voting machine printed out a unique random identifier after you voted, and stored that ID along with your vote, as well as printed out a second copy that is put in a ballot box. The second copies could be used to confirm total vote count and tally accuracy if the election results were suspect. The first print out you keep, and can use it to look your vote up online, to see if your ID cast a vote for your intended candidate.
If a moderate amount of people went online and checked their vote, it would essentially crowd source a check of all votes. If a lot of people start complaining that their vote was wrong, then recounts of the paper codes could occur.
You can get closer to a trusted system with what you mentioned above, but you'd never know for sure that on the day of the election, that each machine wasn't in some way compromised.
What I've always favored is the ability to actually check that your vote was counted towards the right candidate. After you vote, I think the machine should print out a code (and not store it), as well as print out a second copy of the code, which you drop in a box on the way out (so that if necessary, all those codes can be counted to verify the total count). As the election is occurring, and for several weeks after, those codes and who the vote was for, should be displayed on a public web site. You could go to the site, and look up your code, and confirm it voted for X.
If a moderate percent of voters did that, you'd have a moderate confidence that all votes were correctly allocated. Your vote would still be private (only you have the code), but the public as a whole could independently verify the election officials tallies.
Poverty anywhere does cause more crimes, drug use, etc...
But I wonder how much of the recent rise of violent mobs in US cities is caused by the income inequality getting steadily worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
Our US inner cities have become poverty cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty and as inflation and income inequality steadily marches on, I bet we see an increase in violence and more and more riots.
I believe that if you look at it you will discover that a significant part of this is the fact that the Administration used 60% of the new borrowing authority on the first day after it was authorized.
Isn't that because the debt ceiling raise was being used to pay for things we've already bought? It wasn't being raised to spend on new things, its about making payments on things we already committed to fund/buy in past congressional sessions.
I don't understand what you are saying, the House couldn't pass anything until the Republicans were on board, and it was the Republican leadership who pushed the debates right down to the wire, causing the credit rating drop. The democrats had no power over any of that.
No it didn't. If you look at a very limited portion of the data (ie the time since the last ice age) do you see only the warming trend. If you look at ALL the data (like the Vostok ice core), like you should, then you'd know that sea level has been higher than today, the planet has been hotter than today, and that these cyclical trends are normal for our planet. But looking only at the subset of the data that supports your hypothesis and ignoring the rest is not science at all.
I don't claim to be a climate expert, but its pretty easy to see that something is different about this peak. Namely, it isn't dropping off very sharply like it did in the past, and other cycles show that the temperature should be cooler than it currently is now.
See this http://williamrwilson.hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Is-it-All-Caused-by-Natural-Cycles or dozens of other sources that talk about this. Climate scientists do take into account many different cycles of temperature fluctuation, including the Vostok data.
I worked in hospital IT right out of college as a system analyst. We had about 12 males and 2 females in the IT department. The CIO, and the few managers under him were all male. 1 of the 2 females was mainly a receptionist if I recall correctly.
We often traveled to competing hospitals, or hospitals within our parent company out of state, in order to share IT knowledge, best practices, etc.. with other IT staff. Not once did I see an IT department that was dominated by women.
Taking what exists and adding enough innovative twists on it is also good enough. World of Warcraft did that with the Everquest formula, for example.
World of Warcraft wasn't innovative. Not really. It was however VERY well polished. Where Blizzard excelled was constant adjustment of classes to ensure balance, putting in a lot of content and really trying to make it work properly. Now, before you start jumping in and saying how buggy it is come patch time or the like, I am not saying that EVERYTHING works perfectly in it, but I did play it for a number of years, and compared to problems in just about every other MMO, it is right up there as being one of the least buggy - especially in the last few years.
A slight variant on a genre can make either a great game, or a game that just doesn't work. Take Unreal Tournament for example. The original took FPS, looked at the really fun bits, introduced a bunch of new game types that weren't really seen too much, made exciting, fun, tight levels that worked very well for multiplayer and introduced (at the time) amazing bots to play against. It was an AMAZING success. However, the follow-up just missed a few things that made the original so much fun. They focused too much on the technical and overlooked the "fun" aspects. So much so, that they eventually released a patch to make it feel more like the original!!
What I am basically saying is that the marketplace (and certainly publishers) are happy for a little "creativity" at a time, but for them to accept something that is totally different to everything they have played requires something that really is magical.
Blizzard excelled at taking out the 'hard parts' of the mmo experience and presenting a polished game for the masses. Guiding you from quest to quest, no death penalties, no corpse recovery, instantly formed groups. It allowed a completely casual gamer with no notion of what an MMO was about to start the game, and just play.
There wasn't a single innovative thing about World of Warcraft when it came out, unless you want to count the 'easifying' of the mmo experience. EQ had a metric ton more content, quests, items, guilds, recipes, features, etc.. and a highly balanced player vs environment. Blizzards emphasis on PVP is another thing I consider to be something done for the masses, not as an innovative mmo invention.
This will probably never be read, as its Thursday and the thread is from Tuesday, but.....
Some people may find this strange, but society generally doesn't like it if you harbor criminals. Hopefully the FBI has the brains to realize the IRC owners are not always the hackers, but that doesn't mean that the IRC owners are in the clear.
By that logic, shouldn't anyone hosting a means of communication be liable if criminal planning was done using that communication channel? How is hosting an IRC channel any different than Sprint/Verizon hosting text messaging?
But on the flip side, having prosecutors with discretionary power means that even when a crime is committed, depending on circumstances, the prosecutor can decide to not press charges.
Situations like a 17 year old being with an 18 year old. Technically it's a crime in some places, but a moral prosecutor should never file charges in that situation. There is also limited time. A prosecutor has to manage their time well, and that usually means trying to make deals to save court time.
I'd much rather have some flexibility in the system of law (right from the beginning before charges are even pressed) than a rigid system that wouldn't take into account the situation as a whole.
Like any position of power, it always boils down having a good person holding the power. It is pretty difficult to make the rules so detailed and rigid that any method of abuse becomes impossible.
Funny how other countries with way more entitlements are kicking the USA's arse when it comes to education scoring, productivity, salaries, recession proof economies, etc... take Germany for example.
I agree that a simple handout alone is a dumb system. What makes those handouts work, is a system with even more handouts in the form of job training, child care, partial unemployment benefits (so you aren't laid off, just reduced hours during a recession), free college if you test well, etc....
The US way of doing things: We all want cake. Cake represents a healthy economy, highly skilled workers, successful students, high levels of health care and coverage, etc..
So Congress meets to come up with a cake recipe, only the Republicans don't like flour, or eggs, but chocolate and butter gets passed. In the end, we get something that is barely edible, but it certainly isn't a cake.
Sometimes complex social issues can only be resolved by having the right recipe, with all the right parts. Picking and choosing pieces of a recipe (compromising) nearly always leads to mediocre tasteless results.
Making some numbers up, I'm guessing it is like 97% was the cost of the military campaigns and 3% was spent on schools, roads, etc...
Further up someone posted that the total economic aid to Pakistan for the last 10 years has been 6.8 billion. The 'war on terror' is passing 1.5 Trillion now.
China has import tariffs protecting their industries right now. The US has basically none. I doubt the WTO would care if the political climate in the US changed so that we told China, "we are matching your import tariffs to our import tariffs until your products are produced with the same level of regulation that our products are".
98% of people who care about following the legislature and know about popvox and sign up.
I'm guessing if you polled the general public it would be something like 75% don't care, 10% think its OK because a Dem proposed it, 10% think its crap because Dem proposed it, and 5% who understand what it means are against it.
I would be more interested if we could bring the founders into the future and see how they react to modern circumstances.
Would every person be allowed any form of weaponry? Grenades? Mortars? Missiles? Or would our founding fathers enact some gun laws? Would the flying carriages in the sky require no forms of ID, no check points, and no security? Just how would Thomas Jefferson respond if one of those flying carriages was flown into the White House?
And on a side note, I was just googling, without much luck, on how policing was done in the colonial period. From the few short blurbs I could find, it sounded like it was locally formed, rather loose with its rules, and the vast majority of justice was served vigilante style. I'm not sure that would be a better system than our current one.
I agree that we have some pretty big issues, and that things (abuse, diminished rights, etc...) have gotten worse over time. I can see many areas where our system needs tweaking, transparency, and a stricter adherence to law and tradition. Clarence Thomas, for instance, should have recused himself from the Citizens United vote due to his Wife's involvement in the exact same type of organizations that he was ruling about.
But I wish that people would stop glorifying the founding fathers. I'm pretty sure that if we traveled back in time, picked up all the early founders, brought them into our time, dropped them into office, you'd see many differences in their laws given our present circumstances.
I don't think it is accurate to describe US drivers as less skilled. What might be more accurate is that the US driving population has a far larger variety of traffic types. What I mean by that, is our huge suburban populations, small towns, send a constant stream of drivers into cities, and those drivers have not been trained to deal with heavy traffic.
For instance when driving in the 'big city' I live in, I can tell pretty quickly which cars are from 'out of town' or kids coming in from the suburbs. They will be the folks who slow down to allow 1-2 merging cars in front of them. Subsequently slowing down their entire lane of traffic, producing a bunch up, which doesn't easily allow the next set of merging cars in that lane. Or likewise, entering the highway at low speed, and / or completely ignoring the lane they are merging into, expecting someone to let them in at the pace they want in.
The courteous drivers who grew up in low traffic density areas stick out as very unskilled once into heavy traffic. If the US traffic was more uniformly heavier, with a generally denser population like Europe, I suspect we'd see a similar uniformity of driving styles and knowledge, which when observed might be mistaken for skill.
"U.S. traffic engineers make the distinction that in a roundabout entering traffic must always yield to traffic already in the circle, whereas in a traffic circle entering traffic is controlled by stop signs, or is not formally controlled"
"The term "traffic circle" is used to describe circular intersections that have the following characteristics:
Often, circulating traffic yields to entering traffic at one or more approach points. The New Jersey Driver's Manual advises drivers to yield to cars on the right (thus the circulating traffic would yield to entering traffic).[3] In New England and Washington, D.C., rotaries operate such that entering traffic yields.[4]
Tangential approaches between approach roadways and the circulatory roadway allow full-speed entry. Conversely, some traffic circles do not have channelized approaches at all, and roads intersect the circles at 90 degree angles.[1]
High circulating speeds (over 30 mph / 50 km/h) mean that large gaps are needed in the circulating traffic to allow stopped vehicles to safely enter, resulting in lower capacities and higher crash rates than modern roundabouts.[5]
Lane changes may be made within circle road.
The circles are generally of a very large diameter.[1]
There is sometimes pedestrian access to the center island, or parking on the circle.[1] "
But manufacturers can only sell a car at price X if the consumer is willing to pay price X. If people aren't buying their electric cars, the manufacturer either lowers the price, adds value to the product, or stops selling it.
Tax credits and other incentives will spur the adoption rate of electric cars, increasing the volume sold. Increased volumes nearly always lead to lower supply/construction costs. Once manufacturers are selling in large volumes, and due to increased profits are now more motivated to continuing the development of electric cars, the state/fed tax credits can gradually be phased out as the volume sold increases.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how you are defining "someone gets hurt" but surely you'd need to include sites like Hanford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
Someone posted this in a prior slashdot article about this change. Seems like this severely hurts small startups.
http://www.rearden.com/public/110301-Steve_Perlman_S.23_Letter_to_Senator_Feinstein.pdf
"It typically costs us $20,000-$30,000 to obtain a commercial-grade patent. As you can imagine, in a First-
to-File country, as a startup, we could only file patents on a small fraction of the inventions at the time
of conception."
"It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims"
I think its a huge mistake to assume that 'going green' is going to lower our standard of living, or that it will cost trillions. I've seen a Ted Talk where it actually raised our standard of living, produced jobs, increased tax revenue, etc... I think the time frame was something like 30 years to transition off of oil.
Oil pollutes, is a limited resource, and creates foreign dependencies. Aren't those enough reasons alone to at least begin to transition away from oil use?
I just googled 'tea party', found teaparty.net, and went to their about page. The core ideals are:
â Limited federal government
â Individual freedoms
â Personal responsibility
â Free markets
â Returning political power to the states and the people
How exactly would limited government and a more free market stop the exporting of manufacturing to foreign countries?
What about if the voting machine printed out a unique random identifier after you voted, and stored that ID along with your vote, as well as printed out a second copy that is put in a ballot box. The second copies could be used to confirm total vote count and tally accuracy if the election results were suspect. The first print out you keep, and can use it to look your vote up online, to see if your ID cast a vote for your intended candidate.
If a moderate amount of people went online and checked their vote, it would essentially crowd source a check of all votes. If a lot of people start complaining that their vote was wrong, then recounts of the paper codes could occur.
You can get closer to a trusted system with what you mentioned above, but you'd never know for sure that on the day of the election, that each machine wasn't in some way compromised.
What I've always favored is the ability to actually check that your vote was counted towards the right candidate. After you vote, I think the machine should print out a code (and not store it), as well as print out a second copy of the code, which you drop in a box on the way out (so that if necessary, all those codes can be counted to verify the total count). As the election is occurring, and for several weeks after, those codes and who the vote was for, should be displayed on a public web site. You could go to the site, and look up your code, and confirm it voted for X.
If a moderate percent of voters did that, you'd have a moderate confidence that all votes were correctly allocated. Your vote would still be private (only you have the code), but the public as a whole could independently verify the election officials tallies.
Poverty anywhere does cause more crimes, drug use, etc...
But I wonder how much of the recent rise of violent mobs in US cities is caused by the income inequality getting steadily worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
Our US inner cities have become poverty cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty and as inflation and income inequality steadily marches on, I bet we see an increase in violence and more and more riots.
I believe that if you look at it you will discover that a significant part of this is the fact that the Administration used 60% of the new borrowing authority on the first day after it was authorized.
Isn't that because the debt ceiling raise was being used to pay for things we've already bought? It wasn't being raised to spend on new things, its about making payments on things we already committed to fund/buy in past congressional sessions.
I don't understand what you are saying, the House couldn't pass anything until the Republicans were on board, and it was the Republican leadership who pushed the debates right down to the wire, causing the credit rating drop. The democrats had no power over any of that.
No it didn't. If you look at a very limited portion of the data (ie the time since the last ice age) do you see only the warming trend. If you look at ALL the data (like the Vostok ice core), like you should, then you'd know that sea level has been higher than today, the planet has been hotter than today, and that these cyclical trends are normal for our planet. But looking only at the subset of the data that supports your hypothesis and ignoring the rest is not science at all.
I don't claim to be a climate expert, but its pretty easy to see that something is different about this peak. Namely, it isn't dropping off very sharply like it did in the past, and other cycles show that the temperature should be cooler than it currently is now.
See this http://williamrwilson.hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Is-it-All-Caused-by-Natural-Cycles or dozens of other sources that talk about this. Climate scientists do take into account many different cycles of temperature fluctuation, including the Vostok data.
I worked in hospital IT right out of college as a system analyst. We had about 12 males and 2 females in the IT department. The CIO, and the few managers under him were all male. 1 of the 2 females was mainly a receptionist if I recall correctly.
We often traveled to competing hospitals, or hospitals within our parent company out of state, in order to share IT knowledge, best practices, etc.. with other IT staff. Not once did I see an IT department that was dominated by women.
I guess we all have our ancedotes.
Taking what exists and adding enough innovative twists on it is also good enough. World of Warcraft did that with the Everquest formula, for example.
World of Warcraft wasn't innovative. Not really. It was however VERY well polished. Where Blizzard excelled was constant adjustment of classes to ensure balance, putting in a lot of content and really trying to make it work properly. Now, before you start jumping in and saying how buggy it is come patch time or the like, I am not saying that EVERYTHING works perfectly in it, but I did play it for a number of years, and compared to problems in just about every other MMO, it is right up there as being one of the least buggy - especially in the last few years.
A slight variant on a genre can make either a great game, or a game that just doesn't work. Take Unreal Tournament for example. The original took FPS, looked at the really fun bits, introduced a bunch of new game types that weren't really seen too much, made exciting, fun, tight levels that worked very well for multiplayer and introduced (at the time) amazing bots to play against. It was an AMAZING success. However, the follow-up just missed a few things that made the original so much fun. They focused too much on the technical and overlooked the "fun" aspects. So much so, that they eventually released a patch to make it feel more like the original!!
What I am basically saying is that the marketplace (and certainly publishers) are happy for a little "creativity" at a time, but for them to accept something that is totally different to everything they have played requires something that really is magical.
Blizzard excelled at taking out the 'hard parts' of the mmo experience and presenting a polished game for the masses. Guiding you from quest to quest, no death penalties, no corpse recovery, instantly formed groups. It allowed a completely casual gamer with no notion of what an MMO was about to start the game, and just play.
There wasn't a single innovative thing about World of Warcraft when it came out, unless you want to count the 'easifying' of the mmo experience. EQ had a metric ton more content, quests, items, guilds, recipes, features, etc.. and a highly balanced player vs environment. Blizzards emphasis on PVP is another thing I consider to be something done for the masses, not as an innovative mmo invention.
This will probably never be read, as its Thursday and the thread is from Tuesday, but.....
Some people may find this strange, but society generally doesn't like it if you harbor criminals. Hopefully the FBI has the brains to realize the IRC owners are not always the hackers, but that doesn't mean that the IRC owners are in the clear.
By that logic, shouldn't anyone hosting a means of communication be liable if criminal planning was done using that communication channel? How is hosting an IRC channel any different than Sprint/Verizon hosting text messaging?
But on the flip side, having prosecutors with discretionary power means that even when a crime is committed, depending on circumstances, the prosecutor can decide to not press charges.
Situations like a 17 year old being with an 18 year old. Technically it's a crime in some places, but a moral prosecutor should never file charges in that situation. There is also limited time. A prosecutor has to manage their time well, and that usually means trying to make deals to save court time.
I'd much rather have some flexibility in the system of law (right from the beginning before charges are even pressed) than a rigid system that wouldn't take into account the situation as a whole.
Like any position of power, it always boils down having a good person holding the power. It is pretty difficult to make the rules so detailed and rigid that any method of abuse becomes impossible.
Funny how other countries with way more entitlements are kicking the USA's arse when it comes to education scoring, productivity, salaries, recession proof economies, etc... take Germany for example.
I agree that a simple handout alone is a dumb system. What makes those handouts work, is a system with even more handouts in the form of job training, child care, partial unemployment benefits (so you aren't laid off, just reduced hours during a recession), free college if you test well, etc....
The US way of doing things: We all want cake. Cake represents a healthy economy, highly skilled workers, successful students, high levels of health care and coverage, etc..
So Congress meets to come up with a cake recipe, only the Republicans don't like flour, or eggs, but chocolate and butter gets passed. In the end, we get something that is barely edible, but it certainly isn't a cake.
Sometimes complex social issues can only be resolved by having the right recipe, with all the right parts. Picking and choosing pieces of a recipe (compromising) nearly always leads to mediocre tasteless results.
I don't get this, are you not coding to standards? Or attempting to implement some really cutting edge stuff?
Yeah, but how much?
Making some numbers up, I'm guessing it is like 97% was the cost of the military campaigns and 3% was spent on schools, roads, etc...
Further up someone posted that the total economic aid to Pakistan for the last 10 years has been 6.8 billion. The 'war on terror' is passing 1.5 Trillion now.
"If the Afghan / Pakistan areas weren't so rich in oil "
There is no oil nor gas there.
That's much more to the north, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan etc.
True.
But how are you going to get the oil/gas to market, and who is going to control that export route? Wouldn't it be nice if Afghanistan were more under our control and we could put a pipeline in to bring the oil/gas from the North down south and out to sea?
China has import tariffs protecting their industries right now. The US has basically none. I doubt the WTO would care if the political climate in the US changed so that we told China, "we are matching your import tariffs to our import tariffs until your products are produced with the same level of regulation that our products are".
98% of people who care about following the legislature and know about popvox and sign up.
I'm guessing if you polled the general public it would be something like 75% don't care, 10% think its OK because a Dem proposed it, 10% think its crap because Dem proposed it, and 5% who understand what it means are against it.
I would be more interested if we could bring the founders into the future and see how they react to modern circumstances.
Would every person be allowed any form of weaponry? Grenades? Mortars? Missiles? Or would our founding fathers enact some gun laws?
Would the flying carriages in the sky require no forms of ID, no check points, and no security? Just how would Thomas Jefferson respond if one of those flying carriages was flown into the White House?
And on a side note, I was just googling, without much luck, on how policing was done in the colonial period. From the few short blurbs I could find, it sounded like it was locally formed, rather loose with its rules, and the vast majority of justice was served vigilante style. I'm not sure that would be a better system than our current one.
I agree that we have some pretty big issues, and that things (abuse, diminished rights, etc...) have gotten worse over time. I can see many areas where our system needs tweaking, transparency, and a stricter adherence to law and tradition. Clarence Thomas, for instance, should have recused himself from the Citizens United vote due to his Wife's involvement in the exact same type of organizations that he was ruling about.
But I wish that people would stop glorifying the founding fathers. I'm pretty sure that if we traveled back in time, picked up all the early founders, brought them into our time, dropped them into office, you'd see many differences in their laws given our present circumstances.
I don't think it is accurate to describe US drivers as less skilled. What might be more accurate is that the US driving population has a far larger variety of traffic types. What I mean by that, is our huge suburban populations, small towns, send a constant stream of drivers into cities, and those drivers have not been trained to deal with heavy traffic.
For instance when driving in the 'big city' I live in, I can tell pretty quickly which cars are from 'out of town' or kids coming in from the suburbs. They will be the folks who slow down to allow 1-2 merging cars in front of them. Subsequently slowing down their entire lane of traffic, producing a bunch up, which doesn't easily allow the next set of merging cars in that lane. Or likewise, entering the highway at low speed, and / or completely ignoring the lane they are merging into, expecting someone to let them in at the pace they want in.
The courteous drivers who grew up in low traffic density areas stick out as very unskilled once into heavy traffic. If the US traffic was more uniformly heavier, with a generally denser population like Europe, I suspect we'd see a similar uniformity of driving styles and knowledge, which when observed might be mistaken for skill.
"U.S. traffic engineers make the distinction that in a roundabout entering traffic must always yield to traffic already in the circle, whereas in a traffic circle entering traffic is controlled by stop signs, or is not formally controlled"
"The term "traffic circle" is used to describe circular intersections that have the following characteristics:
Often, circulating traffic yields to entering traffic at one or more approach points. The New Jersey Driver's Manual advises drivers to yield to cars on the right (thus the circulating traffic would yield to entering traffic).[3] In New England and Washington, D.C., rotaries operate such that entering traffic yields.[4]
Tangential approaches between approach roadways and the circulatory roadway allow full-speed entry. Conversely, some traffic circles do not have channelized approaches at all, and roads intersect the circles at 90 degree angles.[1]
High circulating speeds (over 30 mph / 50 km/h) mean that large gaps are needed in the circulating traffic to allow stopped vehicles to safely enter, resulting in lower capacities and higher crash rates than modern roundabouts.[5]
Lane changes may be made within circle road.
The circles are generally of a very large diameter.[1]
There is sometimes pedestrian access to the center island, or parking on the circle.[1]
"
Seems like there are some differences.
Every so often that happens to me also. Only 10 or so posts show up. No idea why.
But manufacturers can only sell a car at price X if the consumer is willing to pay price X. If people aren't buying their electric cars, the manufacturer either lowers the price, adds value to the product, or stops selling it.
Tax credits and other incentives will spur the adoption rate of electric cars, increasing the volume sold. Increased volumes nearly always lead to lower supply/construction costs. Once manufacturers are selling in large volumes, and due to increased profits are now more motivated to continuing the development of electric cars, the state/fed tax credits can gradually be phased out as the volume sold increases.