The world isn't perfect, it's free markets that are perfect. If we just got rid of all regulation and let the free market work, buildings would be well-built because people would simply not walk into buildings that are poorly-made or have defects, and women wouldn't get raped because they'd exercise their free-market rights and avoid talking to acquaintances or relatives who might rape them.
This is likely because the profit margin on high-end Euro luxury cars is very high, far more than high-volume cars. So Tesla can afford to sell a similarly-appointed car for a similar price, simply by having a smaller profit margin.
Much of the cost of an electric car is probably in the battery.
Are those things really innovations? They seem more like expensive gimmicks prone to maintenance headaches.
Actually, there is a cabin air filter. Almost every new car these days has one, to keep the interior air clean. It probably needs to be replaced every year or two.
There's no transmission even.
IIRC, there's a single-speed gearbox. Obviously that's a lot simpler than a normal transmission with clutch or torque converter, but it's not nothing. There's also a differential. Of course, when was the last time you had problems with a differential on a gas car? Basically, you just change the gear oil every 50 or 100k and that's it.
The AC and power steering are electric so they will wear much better than the belt-driven pumps and compressors that have clutches.
You're right about the A/C, but most new cars these days have electric power steering, or electro-hydraulic PS (the latter seems to be dying out in favor of all-electric PS).
You're right that the service and maintenance required on an EV is far, far less than a gas car, but it isn't completely gone. But it's definitely a gigantic improvement.
Are those things really innovations? They seem more like expensive gimmicks prone to maintenance headaches.
>Anyone could have put a huge glass cockpit in their luxury car
How is this a maintenance problem? LCD screens do not need maintenance and are generally extremely reliable.
>They could have negotiated lifetime data plans with cellular carriers.
This doesn't require maintenance. Other cars require a monthly fee for data connections so your GPS et al works.
>They could have auto-retracting door handles.
Yes, this is more complex than regular door handles.
>They could have done OTA updates to fix SW updatable components of the car.
How is this a maintenance headache? Other cars require you to take the car to the dealership, and then spend hundreds of dollars for them to just plug in a cable and do a SW update.
>They could have designed gullwing doors for SUVs that take just a few inches to open.
DeLoreans had gullwing doors back in the early 80s, and they work just fine.
It didn't help that they explicitly designed the P4 to work with RAMBUS memory, which was single-source and hideously expensive, and had very high latency. That was a rather stupid decision, as lots of customers switched over to AMD with its much cheaper SDRAM memory because of the prices.
It probably also helps some that the compressor is likely single-speed, since it's run with a built-in electric motor, and doesn't have to be designed to handle a huge range of operating speeds like an engine-mounted compressor does.
that makes no sense.. the auto makers want to sell cars. They don't care much about what kind of car: SUV, sedan, it doesn't matter (though the more expensive, the better -- obviously). If they can get people paying for a new car every few years, they're happy.
They've not going to get people to pay for a new electric car every few years. Electric motors don't wear out like gas engines do; they don't have complicated systems that support them, like radiators, turbochargers, emissions controls, etc. On an EV, there just isn't that much that needs regular maintenance or which will go bad within a few hundred thousand miles, or which isn't easily and cheaply replaced (brake pads, for instance). The biggest problem would probably be the A/C system, since it's just like a normal one, and probably would need recharging after 10+ years, or could have a compressor failure after that much time.
And without lots of regular maintenance (oil changes, coolant changes, timing belt changes, etc.), how are dealerships going to survive? That's why they hate electric cars.
And how well do any of these cars actually sell? No one buys the Volt; it's overpriced and it's a Chevy. (It doesn't help that it's a hybrid, which drives up the price a lot since you now have to pay for a gas engine and all the stuff that goes along with it.) VW doesn't sell any all-electric models. I've certainly never seen one.
Well they completely forgot that higher clock frequencies translate to higher power consumption and higher thermal dissipation, and you can only remove heat from a chip in a consumer computer so fast since resorting to submerging it in coolant obviously isn't feasible for a consumer device. I remember some Intel presentations (I worked there at the time) where they were proudly bragging about how much power these chips consumed. Did they not think people might not like their computers generating that much heat just to do some word processing, and jacking up their electricity bills?
I think the point was even with Intel's massive cash and infrastructure they couldn't bring 64 bit to the desktop
Wrong. They could have if they had wanted to, but they didn't want to. They wanted 64-bit to remain in the realm of big-iron, so they could sell their big, overpriced Itanic chips. Whenever anyone asked about 64-bit chips, Intel said "buy our Itanic!". When anyone complained about the 4G memory limitation inherent with 32-bit chips, they pointed to their crappy PAE extension.
Then AMD came out with the X86-64 ISA, and then suddenly Intel looked stupid. They tried to say things like "people don't need 64 bits on desktop systems", "you can use PAE to use more than 4G", "no one needs more than 4G", until they trotted out their hastily-made "EM64T" version.
It's not just the styling, it's the entire car. No one else makes a serious electric car that comes close to competing with the Tesla. All the other EVs are ultra low-volume "compliance vehicles" that are just made to appease regulators; they're not serious, purpose-built electric cars, and are generally crappy and slow but with a big price tag. Teslas have an even bigger price tag, but they're really nice and very fast, and drive extremely well. At this point, there is zero indication that any of the other automakers really want to produce serious EVs, rather than these half-hearted POSes.
Not only that, but they talked a fair amount about the Ovonics company that was formed to make advanced-tech batteries for EVs, and supplied the battery for the GM EV1. Ovonics is history now. This should serve as a lesson for anyone wanting to make EV batteries, without a really good customer in place.
Who's going to buy batteries to make electric cars? There aren't any serious competitors to the Tesla right now, except maybe (and that's a big maybe) the Nissan Leaf. The other automakers are strongly resisting making any serious electric cars; they're only making "compliance cars", crappy half-hearted attempts to appease government regulators and show they're making an effort to make zero-emissions vehicles. The automakers do NOT want to sell EVs to the general public; they make a lot more money with the status quo, since gas cars require lots of expensive ongoing maintenance at overpriced dealerships, and wear out after a while. The auto dealerships are even worse, as their entire business model rests on expensive maintenance and parts.
Also, we already had a company that specialized in making batteries for EVs. It was called Ovonics, and supplied the batteries for the GM EV1. It was bought out and shut down. Making batteries for EVs, without a popular automaker that's going to buy from you, is a stupid business move.
Besides that, there's a lot more profit in making cars than in making batteries. Who do you think is more profitable, mobile phone makers like Apple and Samsung, or the companies that supply batteries to them. Can you even name those suppliers? You can get Li-ion phone batteries all over Ebay for next to nothing.
And it's not like there's many other electric cars to put them in. The only one I can think of is the Leaf. All the other EVs out there are just conversions from gas-driven vehicles, rather than purpose-built EVs, so they end up with very compromised designs. Many of them aren't even serious vehicles at all: the automakers are just slapping them together to satisfy government regulators, to say "look! we have EVs too! But no one wants to buy them!" Yeah, no one's buying them because they suck ass. The Tesla by contrast is actually really good, so they're selling like hotcakes, since it isn't a half-assed attempt like what the other automakers are spewing out.
There was another company that tried what this dumb bond manager suggests; it was called "Ovonics". It supplied batteries to GM's EV1 electric car, which was famously ill-fated. Ovonics has disappeared now after being bought up and then shut down. I guess that's what this bond manager wants to happen to Tesla.
Who did your daughter socialize with? You think girls like high heels because of DNA? They like them because they see other girls/women wearing them. She saw your wife wearing them, she saw her friends' mothers wearing them, her little girlfriends talked about them and other girly things, etc. I'm sure you didn't raise your daughter only around little boys and isolate her from women altogether.
There's nothing wrong with using movies to keep kids occupied, the problem is those stupid Disney movies that fill their heads with BS about being princesses. Pixar movies are a good choice. There's no princess bullshit in those.
stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
These suggestions are un-American to the point of being treasonous.
Throwing more money at the people who are known to be corrupt will not correct the corruption problems. To fix corruption requires actually removing those who are corrupt
This is New Jersey we're talking about here. You can't fix corruption in New Jersey; it's a hopeless cause.
gosh, who would have thought that ? well, EVERYONE *EXCEPT* the education scammers who are making money from bad-mouthing public education...
And also all the naive liberals who think that mainstreaming all the kids together regardless of their ability will somehow make them all perform well, and that the high-performing kids will help the low-performing kids out in class instead of getting bullied by them.
Slashdot Mirror
The world isn't perfect, it's free markets that are perfect. If we just got rid of all regulation and let the free market work, buildings would be well-built because people would simply not walk into buildings that are poorly-made or have defects, and women wouldn't get raped because they'd exercise their free-market rights and avoid talking to acquaintances or relatives who might rape them.
This is likely because the profit margin on high-end Euro luxury cars is very high, far more than high-volume cars. So Tesla can afford to sell a similarly-appointed car for a similar price, simply by having a smaller profit margin.
Much of the cost of an electric car is probably in the battery.
Are those things really innovations? They seem more like expensive gimmicks prone to maintenance headaches.
Actually, there is a cabin air filter. Almost every new car these days has one, to keep the interior air clean. It probably needs to be replaced every year or two.
There's no transmission even.
IIRC, there's a single-speed gearbox. Obviously that's a lot simpler than a normal transmission with clutch or torque converter, but it's not nothing. There's also a differential. Of course, when was the last time you had problems with a differential on a gas car? Basically, you just change the gear oil every 50 or 100k and that's it.
The AC and power steering are electric so they will wear much better than the belt-driven pumps and compressors that have clutches.
You're right about the A/C, but most new cars these days have electric power steering, or electro-hydraulic PS (the latter seems to be dying out in favor of all-electric PS).
You're right that the service and maintenance required on an EV is far, far less than a gas car, but it isn't completely gone. But it's definitely a gigantic improvement.
Are those things really innovations? They seem more like expensive gimmicks prone to maintenance headaches.
>Anyone could have put a huge glass cockpit in their luxury car
How is this a maintenance problem? LCD screens do not need maintenance and are generally extremely reliable.
>They could have negotiated lifetime data plans with cellular carriers.
This doesn't require maintenance. Other cars require a monthly fee for data connections so your GPS et al works.
>They could have auto-retracting door handles.
Yes, this is more complex than regular door handles.
>They could have done OTA updates to fix SW updatable components of the car.
How is this a maintenance headache? Other cars require you to take the car to the dealership, and then spend hundreds of dollars for them to just plug in a cable and do a SW update.
>They could have designed gullwing doors for SUVs that take just a few inches to open.
DeLoreans had gullwing doors back in the early 80s, and they work just fine.
It didn't help that they explicitly designed the P4 to work with RAMBUS memory, which was single-source and hideously expensive, and had very high latency. That was a rather stupid decision, as lots of customers switched over to AMD with its much cheaper SDRAM memory because of the prices.
It probably also helps some that the compressor is likely single-speed, since it's run with a built-in electric motor, and doesn't have to be designed to handle a huge range of operating speeds like an engine-mounted compressor does.
They're not sold in the US.
that makes no sense.. the auto makers want to sell cars. They don't care much about what kind of car: SUV, sedan, it doesn't matter (though the more expensive, the better -- obviously). If they can get people paying for a new car every few years, they're happy.
They've not going to get people to pay for a new electric car every few years. Electric motors don't wear out like gas engines do; they don't have complicated systems that support them, like radiators, turbochargers, emissions controls, etc. On an EV, there just isn't that much that needs regular maintenance or which will go bad within a few hundred thousand miles, or which isn't easily and cheaply replaced (brake pads, for instance). The biggest problem would probably be the A/C system, since it's just like a normal one, and probably would need recharging after 10+ years, or could have a compressor failure after that much time.
And without lots of regular maintenance (oil changes, coolant changes, timing belt changes, etc.), how are dealerships going to survive? That's why they hate electric cars.
And how well do any of these cars actually sell? No one buys the Volt; it's overpriced and it's a Chevy. (It doesn't help that it's a hybrid, which drives up the price a lot since you now have to pay for a gas engine and all the stuff that goes along with it.) VW doesn't sell any all-electric models. I've certainly never seen one.
Well they completely forgot that higher clock frequencies translate to higher power consumption and higher thermal dissipation, and you can only remove heat from a chip in a consumer computer so fast since resorting to submerging it in coolant obviously isn't feasible for a consumer device. I remember some Intel presentations (I worked there at the time) where they were proudly bragging about how much power these chips consumed. Did they not think people might not like their computers generating that much heat just to do some word processing, and jacking up their electricity bills?
I think the point was even with Intel's massive cash and infrastructure they couldn't bring 64 bit to the desktop
Wrong. They could have if they had wanted to, but they didn't want to. They wanted 64-bit to remain in the realm of big-iron, so they could sell their big, overpriced Itanic chips. Whenever anyone asked about 64-bit chips, Intel said "buy our Itanic!". When anyone complained about the 4G memory limitation inherent with 32-bit chips, they pointed to their crappy PAE extension.
Then AMD came out with the X86-64 ISA, and then suddenly Intel looked stupid. They tried to say things like "people don't need 64 bits on desktop systems", "you can use PAE to use more than 4G", "no one needs more than 4G", until they trotted out their hastily-made "EM64T" version.
It's not just the styling, it's the entire car. No one else makes a serious electric car that comes close to competing with the Tesla. All the other EVs are ultra low-volume "compliance vehicles" that are just made to appease regulators; they're not serious, purpose-built electric cars, and are generally crappy and slow but with a big price tag. Teslas have an even bigger price tag, but they're really nice and very fast, and drive extremely well. At this point, there is zero indication that any of the other automakers really want to produce serious EVs, rather than these half-hearted POSes.
Not only that, but they talked a fair amount about the Ovonics company that was formed to make advanced-tech batteries for EVs, and supplied the battery for the GM EV1. Ovonics is history now. This should serve as a lesson for anyone wanting to make EV batteries, without a really good customer in place.
Who's going to buy batteries to make electric cars? There aren't any serious competitors to the Tesla right now, except maybe (and that's a big maybe) the Nissan Leaf. The other automakers are strongly resisting making any serious electric cars; they're only making "compliance cars", crappy half-hearted attempts to appease government regulators and show they're making an effort to make zero-emissions vehicles. The automakers do NOT want to sell EVs to the general public; they make a lot more money with the status quo, since gas cars require lots of expensive ongoing maintenance at overpriced dealerships, and wear out after a while. The auto dealerships are even worse, as their entire business model rests on expensive maintenance and parts.
Also, we already had a company that specialized in making batteries for EVs. It was called Ovonics, and supplied the batteries for the GM EV1. It was bought out and shut down. Making batteries for EVs, without a popular automaker that's going to buy from you, is a stupid business move.
Besides that, there's a lot more profit in making cars than in making batteries. Who do you think is more profitable, mobile phone makers like Apple and Samsung, or the companies that supply batteries to them. Can you even name those suppliers? You can get Li-ion phone batteries all over Ebay for next to nothing.
And it's not like there's many other electric cars to put them in. The only one I can think of is the Leaf. All the other EVs out there are just conversions from gas-driven vehicles, rather than purpose-built EVs, so they end up with very compromised designs. Many of them aren't even serious vehicles at all: the automakers are just slapping them together to satisfy government regulators, to say "look! we have EVs too! But no one wants to buy them!" Yeah, no one's buying them because they suck ass. The Tesla by contrast is actually really good, so they're selling like hotcakes, since it isn't a half-assed attempt like what the other automakers are spewing out.
There was another company that tried what this dumb bond manager suggests; it was called "Ovonics". It supplied batteries to GM's EV1 electric car, which was famously ill-fated. Ovonics has disappeared now after being bought up and then shut down. I guess that's what this bond manager wants to happen to Tesla.
Sounds like he's in league with the automakers.
What city is this?
So is submission OK for a man too? Or are you one of those Christian nutjobs who thinks wive should be subservient to their husbands?
Exactly. You're not going to find any Indian or Chinese girls who want to be fairy ballerinas.
Who did your daughter socialize with? You think girls like high heels because of DNA? They like them because they see other girls/women wearing them. She saw your wife wearing them, she saw her friends' mothers wearing them, her little girlfriends talked about them and other girly things, etc. I'm sure you didn't raise your daughter only around little boys and isolate her from women altogether.
There's nothing wrong with using movies to keep kids occupied, the problem is those stupid Disney movies that fill their heads with BS about being princesses. Pixar movies are a good choice. There's no princess bullshit in those.
The problem is all those damn Disney movies parents use as babysitters.
stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
These suggestions are un-American to the point of being treasonous.
Throwing more money at the people who are known to be corrupt will not correct the corruption problems. To fix corruption requires actually removing those who are corrupt
This is New Jersey we're talking about here. You can't fix corruption in New Jersey; it's a hopeless cause.
gosh, who would have thought that ? well, EVERYONE *EXCEPT* the education scammers who are making money from bad-mouthing public education...
And also all the naive liberals who think that mainstreaming all the kids together regardless of their ability will somehow make them all perform well, and that the high-performing kids will help the low-performing kids out in class instead of getting bullied by them.