You know what, maybe the minority are seeing the issues that are going to occur for the vast majority if they start to rush into buying an EV without really thinking about it first.
Maybe we already bought one, went through that paradigm shift, and realize your complaints just don't apply unless you're in a small subset of drivers.
There's going to be people who need gas for the foreseeable future. Hauling heavy loads and/or towing isn't going to go battery very quickly for those not in long-haul trucking. The infrastructure to make batteries work there is way to expensive if you're not operating a fleet. Also, there's some people who will need the virtually unlimited range of gas.
That market is plenty big for car makers to continue to support it. Demanding that EVs support it right now is silly.
Outdoor chargers are pretty cheap to install. As battery cars become more popular, they'll be installed in your parking lot and marketed as a benefit for your complex.
Outdoor chargers are pretty cheap to install. As battery cars become more popular, they'll be installed in your parking lot and marketed as a benefit for your complex.
Because it isn't actually lined with nails 5% of the time.
The vast majority of drivers don't go on road trips. So, demanding that all electric cars must support road trips as well as a gas car is silly.
The few who need the extra power density (ie. towing, hauling), or virtually unlimited range will still buy gas. And that market is plenty large for car makers to continue to support it.
But we don't need to support that segment with every vehicle.
As you point out with the Prius, Series hybrids use 100% electrical only below about 20mph. Above that, they use the gas engine.
Plug-in hybrids can use all electrical until their battery runs out, at which point they behave as series hybrids and use the gas engine above about 20-40mph (varies by car). Also, plug-in hybrids will never use the gas engine to entirely charge the car. It will, at most, charge up the battery about as much as a series hybrid does for initial start from a stoplight.
A Chevy bolt is much closer to this ideal.
The Bolt is the EV. The Volt is the plug-in hybrid. I own a Volt. Do not buy one. I've had the joy of paying for a lot of towing, followed by the dealer's service department saying "duh....I dunno"
The problem is you're applying a gasoline paradigm to a battery vehicle. Everyone is so used to going to a gas station once a week/2 weeks that they keep thinking of this paradigm as how you "refuel" your EV.
You refuel your EV in your garage every night. Refuel time does not matter for the vast majority of drivers, because the vast majority of drivers never drive >200mi per day, so an overnight recharge is fine.
"But what about people without garages?!?!" They'll have to wait for battery chargers to become more common. I anticipate we'll eventually reach the point where they're extremely common where vehicles park - the installation and maintenance costs of chargers are tiny compared to gas stations, so they're going to spring up much, much faster than gas stations did.
The average person is not interested in the hassle of keeping an EV charged
It's really not any hassle. You plug it in when you get home. Ta-da! You will now be keeping your car charged.
(And if you can't reliably park somewhere with a charger, then don't get one. But chargers will get much more common as EVs take off, just like gas stations did when cars took off)
People talking about battery cars keep using the gasoline paradigm where you go somewhere to "refuel". You don't do that with a battery car. Which means you're trading the hassle of an extra trip/stop and pumping your gas for the hassle of pushing in a plug.
Plug-in hybrids use no gas for normal day to day driving
Not really. The gas engine, more complex transmission, gas tank and so on mean you lose a ton of battery space. So in a car that could support a 200mi range battery pack, you get a 30mi range battery pack. Which means unless your commuting is particularly short, you're going to regularly use some gas.
That would be the part that electronic voting machines were trying to eliminate. For the same reason we don't want people to just let their friend vote in their place.
In order to understand whether it is worth addressing your primary point
Protip: Primary points do not start with "Also".
So, what percentage of eligible voters are disabled in a way which makes getting to the polling station and casting their vote excessively difficult?
To rephrase your question, "what percentage of people don't deserve their rights because they had bad luck?". And then you might notice just how awful your line of thinking is.
Beyond a certain point, and the U.S. is beyond that point, making it easier to vote is a bug not a feature.
Yes, those pesky voters might not choose the properly ordained candidate!!
As one illustration of this, people who are not willing to make sure that they are on the rolls to vote a week or more in advance of the election (how far in advance is another question) are unlikely to have spent the time to understand who and what they are voting for.
First, there's not particular time limit for removing someone from the voter rolls. Go ahead and do it on the day before the election so that you can get your preferred outcome while blaming the voters you disenfranchised.
Second, the process required to register to vote varies by state (and even county), and some have created a process that is intentionally difficult for the people they don't like. For example, if you're in, say, Mississippi and you don't want poor black people to vote, you pass a voter ID law. And you place the only locations to get appropriate ID far from mass transit, off in the suburbs. Preferably the well-to-do suburbs. You also staff the office such that it's going to take at least an hour in line. And you have it only open 10-4 during the week. When courts refuse to let your charge for that ID, you instead charge a hefty fee for the documentation required to get the ID. And then you go an pontificate how those voters who "couldn't bother to get an ID" just shouldn't be allow to vote because they're so lazy or couldn't possibly understand what they are voting on.
Why would they cut it open? They could just wait until the polling station is closed, hack into the software running the voting machine
:facepalm:
So, the voting machines are only rolled out on election day. At the end of election day, the data is copied off the machines and they are rolled back into a locked/guarded warehouse. Where altering the totals in the machines don't do any good.
They are not just sitting their 365 days a year.
Or are you not aware that the most likely people to want to modify the outcome of the vote are those running the vote counting process?
Which is why that part of the process is observed by members of the political parties on that ballot. If the poll workers try to alter the votes to favor one party, observers for the other party are standing right there to complain about it.
For you americans who don't understand how voting is done properly in the rest of the world, it goes like this:
Hate to damage your arrogance, but about 80% of the US votes in the way you described. The other 20% bought expensive machines that they haven't replaced yet. But they are being replaced.
Also, the massive gaping hole in your system that you didn't bother to think about is what do disabled people do? That actually was the primary selling point of all-electronic voting systems - handling disabled voters is far simpler. Blind people are gonna have a teensy bit of a problem marking a paper ballot, but a pair of headphones let them vote on an electronic system.
What is the problem we're trying to solve here? In most functional democracies,
Hmmm....why would the Defense Department be interested in voting systems......perhaps something about the country not being a functional democracy post-invasion.
Also, there's still plenty of places within 'functional democracies' with direct electronic recorded votes with no paper trail.
In other words, securely computerizing the polling booth is, to an extent, even more challenging than where you try to implement networked voting.
You're kidding, right?
"Hey Bob....what's that angle grinder for?" "Oh, just like carrying it around" *Poll worker ignores incredibly loud racket as the hardened case is cut open*
The key difference between that project and this one is the DARPA project does not use the Internet. Heck, it isn't even a 'networked application'. Thus reducing the attack surface to locations that can be physically monitored by adversarial parties.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what, maybe the minority are seeing the issues that are going to occur for the vast majority if they start to rush into buying an EV without really thinking about it first.
Maybe we already bought one, went through that paradigm shift, and realize your complaints just don't apply unless you're in a small subset of drivers.
There's going to be people who need gas for the foreseeable future. Hauling heavy loads and/or towing isn't going to go battery very quickly for those not in long-haul trucking. The infrastructure to make batteries work there is way to expensive if you're not operating a fleet. Also, there's some people who will need the virtually unlimited range of gas.
That market is plenty big for car makers to continue to support it. Demanding that EVs support it right now is silly.
If only I'd put in a paragraph talking about that.....
Outdoor chargers are pretty cheap to install. As battery cars become more popular, they'll be installed in your parking lot and marketed as a benefit for your complex.
Who live in condominiums / townhouses / etc.
Outdoor chargers are pretty cheap to install. As battery cars become more popular, they'll be installed in your parking lot and marketed as a benefit for your complex.
Because it isn't actually lined with nails 5% of the time.
The vast majority of drivers don't go on road trips. So, demanding that all electric cars must support road trips as well as a gas car is silly.
The few who need the extra power density (ie. towing, hauling), or virtually unlimited range will still buy gas. And that market is plenty large for car makers to continue to support it.
But we don't need to support that segment with every vehicle.
most could make it to 400+ if you weren't spending all your time stuck in stop-and-go traffi
And that's the key. The official range isn't based on highway driving.
16 gallon tanks are common. 20mpg is common. That theoretical car has a range of 320 miles.
Blind or otherwise disabled voters have a counselor who votes with them together.
And that is far inferior to that person being able to fill out their own ballot. Plus, blind is not the only disability.
And, now the american system is not similar/the same, you punch holes into the paper.
:facepalm:
First, there is no "American" system. Our elections are run by the states. There are 50 election systems in the US.
Second, a minority of states ever used punch cards, and none have used punchcards since 2000.
You have absolutely zero idea of what you are complaining about.
per tank on the highway
Which isn't how the range of a car is measured. Which is why the official ranges are shorter.
Congratulations, you're about 5% of drivers. Clearly, the other 95% need to hold off on EVs because of that.
and the batteries have been getting bigger as that tech improves and becomes cheaper.
The battery range on Toyota's plug-in hybrids is something like 20 miles.
The battery range on my 8-year-old Volt is about 40 (in favorable conditions, 30 in unfavorable conditions).
They're behind, even on hybrids.
all traction is electrical
Nope.
As you point out with the Prius, Series hybrids use 100% electrical only below about 20mph. Above that, they use the gas engine.
Plug-in hybrids can use all electrical until their battery runs out, at which point they behave as series hybrids and use the gas engine above about 20-40mph (varies by car). Also, plug-in hybrids will never use the gas engine to entirely charge the car. It will, at most, charge up the battery about as much as a series hybrid does for initial start from a stoplight.
A Chevy bolt is much closer to this ideal.
The Bolt is the EV. The Volt is the plug-in hybrid. I own a Volt. Do not buy one. I've had the joy of paying for a lot of towing, followed by the dealer's service department saying "duh....I dunno"
have a range of 400+ miles
Uh.....gas cars have ranges of 200-300 miles. Jacking up the requirements to make a point about EVs isn't exactly unbiased.
Not only that, there's 50 years of manufacturing knowledge behind toyota's ICE
And when you attach it to new technology to make it a hybrid, you lose a great deal of that benefit.
refueling infrastructure, and refuel time.
The problem is you're applying a gasoline paradigm to a battery vehicle. Everyone is so used to going to a gas station once a week/2 weeks that they keep thinking of this paradigm as how you "refuel" your EV.
You refuel your EV in your garage every night. Refuel time does not matter for the vast majority of drivers, because the vast majority of drivers never drive >200mi per day, so an overnight recharge is fine.
"But what about people without garages?!?!" They'll have to wait for battery chargers to become more common. I anticipate we'll eventually reach the point where they're extremely common where vehicles park - the installation and maintenance costs of chargers are tiny compared to gas stations, so they're going to spring up much, much faster than gas stations did.
They don't make sense if you like to road trip vacation, or do any road trip, or any prolonged driving
EVs have ranges of 200-300 miles. Just like gas cars.
So unless you are refilling your gas car multiple times per day, you're not going to be exceeding the range of an EV.
The average person is not interested in the hassle of keeping an EV charged
It's really not any hassle. You plug it in when you get home. Ta-da! You will now be keeping your car charged.
(And if you can't reliably park somewhere with a charger, then don't get one. But chargers will get much more common as EVs take off, just like gas stations did when cars took off)
People talking about battery cars keep using the gasoline paradigm where you go somewhere to "refuel". You don't do that with a battery car. Which means you're trading the hassle of an extra trip/stop and pumping your gas for the hassle of pushing in a plug.
Plug-in hybrids use no gas for normal day to day driving
Not really. The gas engine, more complex transmission, gas tank and so on mean you lose a ton of battery space. So in a car that could support a 200mi range battery pack, you get a 30mi range battery pack. Which means unless your commuting is particularly short, you're going to regularly use some gas.
Source: I own a Volt.
have friend verify if blind
That would be the part that electronic voting machines were trying to eliminate. For the same reason we don't want people to just let their friend vote in their place.
In order to understand whether it is worth addressing your primary point
Protip: Primary points do not start with "Also".
So, what percentage of eligible voters are disabled in a way which makes getting to the polling station and casting their vote excessively difficult?
To rephrase your question, "what percentage of people don't deserve their rights because they had bad luck?". And then you might notice just how awful your line of thinking is.
Beyond a certain point, and the U.S. is beyond that point, making it easier to vote is a bug not a feature.
Yes, those pesky voters might not choose the properly ordained candidate!!
As one illustration of this, people who are not willing to make sure that they are on the rolls to vote a week or more in advance of the election (how far in advance is another question) are unlikely to have spent the time to understand who and what they are voting for.
First, there's not particular time limit for removing someone from the voter rolls. Go ahead and do it on the day before the election so that you can get your preferred outcome while blaming the voters you disenfranchised.
Second, the process required to register to vote varies by state (and even county), and some have created a process that is intentionally difficult for the people they don't like. For example, if you're in, say, Mississippi and you don't want poor black people to vote, you pass a voter ID law. And you place the only locations to get appropriate ID far from mass transit, off in the suburbs. Preferably the well-to-do suburbs. You also staff the office such that it's going to take at least an hour in line. And you have it only open 10-4 during the week. When courts refuse to let your charge for that ID, you instead charge a hefty fee for the documentation required to get the ID. And then you go an pontificate how those voters who "couldn't bother to get an ID" just shouldn't be allow to vote because they're so lazy or couldn't possibly understand what they are voting on.
Why would they cut it open? They could just wait until the polling station is closed, hack into the software running the voting machine
:facepalm:
So, the voting machines are only rolled out on election day. At the end of election day, the data is copied off the machines and they are rolled back into a locked/guarded warehouse. Where altering the totals in the machines don't do any good.
They are not just sitting their 365 days a year.
Or are you not aware that the most likely people to want to modify the outcome of the vote are those running the vote counting process?
Which is why that part of the process is observed by members of the political parties on that ballot. If the poll workers try to alter the votes to favor one party, observers for the other party are standing right there to complain about it.
Gotta hold elections after we have been greeted as liberators.
For you americans who don't understand how voting is done properly in the rest of the world, it goes like this:
Hate to damage your arrogance, but about 80% of the US votes in the way you described. The other 20% bought expensive machines that they haven't replaced yet. But they are being replaced.
Also, the massive gaping hole in your system that you didn't bother to think about is what do disabled people do? That actually was the primary selling point of all-electronic voting systems - handling disabled voters is far simpler. Blind people are gonna have a teensy bit of a problem marking a paper ballot, but a pair of headphones let them vote on an electronic system.
What is the problem we're trying to solve here? In most functional democracies,
Hmmm....why would the Defense Department be interested in voting systems......perhaps something about the country not being a functional democracy post-invasion.
Also, there's still plenty of places within 'functional democracies' with direct electronic recorded votes with no paper trail.
In other words, securely computerizing the polling booth is, to an extent, even more challenging than where you try to implement networked voting.
You're kidding, right?
"Hey Bob....what's that angle grinder for?"
"Oh, just like carrying it around"
*Poll worker ignores incredibly loud racket as the hardened case is cut open*
The key difference between that project and this one is the DARPA project does not use the Internet. Heck, it isn't even a 'networked application'. Thus reducing the attack surface to locations that can be physically monitored by adversarial parties.
Statistical noise.
We literally just had to throw out an election in North Carolina over vote-buying (via paid workers tampering with absentee ballots)
In addition, there's no reason why a law (which frankly probably already exists) couldn't prohibit vote coercion
We know about the problem in North Carolina because people are getting charged with a crime. Didn't stop them from doing it in the first place.
Also, there's really good evidence that this is the second election where this particular consultant did this.
How many people vote completely randomly?
Exceptionally few. There's no incentive to show up when you're just going to vote randomly. So you don't go out of your way to go to a polling place.
I have personally seen shuttle buses of non-English-speaking illegals being taken to more than one voting location in Spokane WA.
Is there a particular reason you decided to join their conspiracy instead of reporting it?
Also, do your telepathic powers only reveal citizenship status, or can you get other information?
Alternatively, and far more likely, you're lying.