The laws of thermodynamics state that regenerative breaking can only capture *some* of the energy lost in slowing down. One will never get as much range in city driving than in highway driving. Mainly because in this house, Lisa, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
You will get more range in the city than highway, unless you drive as slow on the highway as you do in the city.
The reason that city driving in a hybrid or electric vehicle can be more efficient than highway is because the inefficiency of the regeneration is overpowered by the reduced wind resistance.
If it was affordable, this would definitely make a viable replacement for a petroleum fueled vehicle.
I don't know about you but when I travel long distances on the highway I expect a 500 km trip to take about 4.5 hours, not 9 hours.
I love the Tesla but battery technology needs to improve its capacity/weight ratio by about 20 before electric vehicles will be equilivant to gasoline powered vehicles for long distance highway travel.
My original point was that the only property rights you can rely on are those that you can personally enforce, independent of whatever government exists. It might be easier to protect your property with the assistance of a government but relying solely on them doesn't work.
The fact that an armed gang with more guns can steal from you is true regardless. Even if that gang happens to be the government itself.
As children my siblings and I played in the same backyard that our dog lived in. We never intentionally got into the stuff but I'm sure that there was incidental contact. None of us ever had any problems.
In places where there is no functional government, there is the rule of force, where a local warlord can send his men to your house and chase you off, with no recourse.
In some places with a functional government in accordance with the rule of law a large company can lobby local officials to force the sale of your house to them and chase you off, with no recourse.
The only difference is that the government version is more subtle about applying force and they give you a token recompense.
No. Individuals have always had the ability to *try* to enforce their property rights. If someone else comes along with more swords or bigger guns they won't last long.
It has the advantage of setting a level playing field, rather than having an anarchist free-for-all where the right of way goes to the biggest guns.
Guess what - the right of way goes to the biggest guns no matter if you have a government or not. Even with governments we still have robbery, and in some cases the government itself commits the crime.
In the end property owners are the only ones that can be trusted to defend their property rights. A government can supplement this but if you try to centralize the primary responsibility in a central authority then the authority will either be too small to be effective or large enough that it becomes a target for corruption.
Just so you know kids and dogs have lived in close quarters for the last 10,000 years or so and incidental exposure to dog poop may even cause more benfits than harm.
Even more unfortunately, the earth is losing vegetation daily, to human influences. The Amazon, for example, is on the verge of collapse (and may already be past the tipping point. Experts disagree.)
Other than being completely opposite of true, you make a good point.
If you think that property rights can't exist without government I suggest that you travel to some part of the world that has no functioning government and try to steal the property of one of the natives just to see what happens.
From an economical point of view, raising cattle for meat made sense in former times to reduce the amount of human labor of food production, and it still makes sense in many developing countries. This is especially true in arid regions where farming is very difficult. However, in industrialized countries it does not make any sense and we only continue to do it because we can and because we have always done it.
No, we continue raising cattle for meat because they are delicious.
Sites like cracked.com (and tvtropes.org) need an explicit warning:
"Caution: After clicking on this link you may lose all awareness of the passage of time. If you have anything that you need to do in the next 3-4 hours you probably don't want to go there"
I'm saying that if you want to build your own network from scratch, buy all the necessary property rights yourself and don't ask for any special favors from the government then you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
On the other hand if you lobby the state for easements and convince them to lock out all competitors from running their own cable then you have no right to complain when the state wants to regulate your business.
I would agree with the anti-net neutrality people if the network had been built without resorting to eminent domain and artificial monolopies.
You can't ask for special government favors to get your infrastructure built and then all of a sudden "come to libertarian Jesus" and demand to be free of government regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not. Most resonably modern cars get their best milage at 60 +/-5 MPH
My job is 7 miles from my apartment and about 5 of those miles are driven on a highway at 70 MPH.
You will get more range in the city than highway, unless you drive as slow on the highway as you do in the city.
The reason that city driving in a hybrid or electric vehicle can be more efficient than highway is because the inefficiency of the regeneration is overpowered by the reduced wind resistance.
Enough for any short road trip. In order to achieve the range of a typical gasoline powered car the Roadster has to travel at half the speed.
It's perfect for driving around town but in no way is it good for long-distance transportation.
The US is also to the East of France...
That makes a lot more sense than trying to make an electric car into something that it can't be.
Until we get that 20 times improvement in battery technology it makes more sense to optimise electric vehicles for commuting, not long distance.
So what's your solution? Extinction?
I don't know about you but when I travel long distances on the highway I expect a 500 km trip to take about 4.5 hours, not 9 hours.
I love the Tesla but battery technology needs to improve its capacity/weight ratio by about 20 before electric vehicles will be equilivant to gasoline powered vehicles for long distance highway travel.
Only if by "pretty decent" you mean half the speed of a gasoline-powered car.
You're missing the step where you demonstrate that "giving up a little" actually results in a reduction of preventable deaths.
Also all those "littles" have a way of adding up to quite a bit once all the hysterical mothers lobbying groups get their pet laws passed.
My original point was that the only property rights you can rely on are those that you can personally enforce, independent of whatever government exists. It might be easier to protect your property with the assistance of a government but relying solely on them doesn't work.
The fact that an armed gang with more guns can steal from you is true regardless. Even if that gang happens to be the government itself.
As children my siblings and I played in the same backyard that our dog lived in. We never intentionally got into the stuff but I'm sure that there was incidental contact. None of us ever had any problems.
In some places with a functional government in accordance with the rule of law a large company can lobby local officials to force the sale of your house to them and chase you off, with no recourse.
The only difference is that the government version is more subtle about applying force and they give you a token recompense.
Guess what - the right of way goes to the biggest guns no matter if you have a government or not. Even with governments we still have robbery, and in some cases the government itself commits the crime.
In the end property owners are the only ones that can be trusted to defend their property rights. A government can supplement this but if you try to centralize the primary responsibility in a central authority then the authority will either be too small to be effective or large enough that it becomes a target for corruption.
Just so you know kids and dogs have lived in close quarters for the last 10,000 years or so and incidental exposure to dog poop may even cause more benfits than harm.
Other than being completely opposite of true, you make a good point.
Individuals have always had the ability to enforce their property rights with or without government backing.
Outsourcing this function to the government may have certain advantages, but those right won't automatically go away if the government does.
If you think that property rights can't exist without government I suggest that you travel to some part of the world that has no functioning government and try to steal the property of one of the natives just to see what happens.
That's not entirely true. Modern farming methods turn large quantities of natural gas into food via fertilizer.
No, we continue raising cattle for meat because they are delicious.
Sites like cracked.com (and tvtropes.org) need an explicit warning:
"Caution: After clicking on this link you may lose all awareness of the passage of time. If you have anything that you need to do in the next 3-4 hours you probably don't want to go there"
I'm saying that if you want to build your own network from scratch, buy all the necessary property rights yourself and don't ask for any special favors from the government then you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
On the other hand if you lobby the state for easements and convince them to lock out all competitors from running their own cable then you have no right to complain when the state wants to regulate your business.
The libertarian principal is that the use force is never justified except in self defense.
Libertaranism is the outcome of applying that principal to all human interactions.
The problem is that not everyone comes to exactly the same conclusions when they are done with that mental exercise.
I would agree with the anti-net neutrality people if the network had been built without resorting to eminent domain and artificial monolopies.
You can't ask for special government favors to get your infrastructure built and then all of a sudden "come to libertarian Jesus" and demand to be free of government regulation.
Maybe they were flying a plane.