Money might be important then, but the thing to do would be go to back to your current employer and see if they can close part of the gap. That's much better than changing to a job you hate. There was a time where our salaries got a bit low compared to industry and all I had to do was tell my boss that the numbers being offered were so much higher comparatively that it would be irresponsible not to consider it. HR reevaluated what we pay and I think everybody got a raise. Money really shouldn't be that important in the sense that your skills have a market value and it's unlikely that there are going to be offers that are 20-30% apart regularly. And if there are, it still makes sense to try to go with the better job.
Which is one of the reasons that we are seeing more resistance to "controversial" speakers at places like college campuses. If somebody who disagrees with you is genuinely seeking the truth, you should engage them. You may both learn something. If they are going to pretend to engage in debate but just push an agenda even after it is disproven, it's irresponsible to give them a platform. We should judge the validity of somebody's statements not on what they say but on whether the genuinely seek the truth
Yes he would have to make one 20 minute stop at a super charger. At the same time he can urinate and eat. The who/e/. attitude toward EVs will change when they start putting superchargers outside of stripper bars. Then suddenly everybody will be buying them and declaring that the "most convenient" supercharger is at strippers-r-us.
I'm not saying a used Leaf is good for you. I'm saying that for *most* *families* with multiple vehicles, having one of them be a BEV makes sense. Everybody's situation is different. You describe driving it for ten years. I can't actually find it in our HOA rules, but it seems as if there is a rule against owning any vehicle more than five years old. You would certainly think so the way people complain if there is any older-looking vehicle parked overnight. But I know very well that my situation isn't typical in that regard. One counter example doesn't change a many/most statement.
I hope these are rhetorical questions since I certainly am not the right person to ask Leaf-specific questions! You can charge a leaf in 8 hours from a standard wall charger so for most people you don't need anything special. The cars come with 8 year / 100k miles on the batteries and, as far as I know, transfer when the car is sold. There are no eight year old Leaf's so you would have to hypothesize the resale value. A BEV has much less maintenance and less to break than an ICE car although I would guess that repairs are more expensive. All this has to be balanced against fuel savings. As has already been mentioned, batteries don't degrade that much so worrying about residual range doesn't seem to be a big concern although as has also already been mentioned don't buy an older Leaf as the batteries were passively cooled and that did lead to degradation. Get a model new enough to have active cooling. The good new is with all those older models out there, junkyard parts are probably plentiful if you need a non-EV component
Really? For a used car, you can't beat the NIssan Leaf. You can get one 3 years old with under 50k miles for under $10k. Considering that they are $35k new, that's a steal. Plus under $10k is just a good price for a car. Go a year or two older and you are in the $5k ranger. Its shocking how cheap they are. Now that's terrible if you purchased yours at full retail and want to sell, but its a great deal in the used market. I assume most new purchasers got $15k in tax credits, though, so their actual price was closer to $20k. Still awful in terms of depreciation though. Glad I never bought one new, but happy to get a bargain on the aftermath.
The OP said "Wow, it must be a lot of fun driving across the country driving 2 hours at a time and having to wait 20 minutes." He definitely did use the phrase "across the country." It's clear that BEVs don't work for everybody. Anybody who claims that they do would be making a fool of themselves. But I would argue that we are getting to a point where most two (or more) vehicle families would probably be better off if one of them were a BEV.
I work with a good number of people who drive across their states for business. They own very high end gase vehicles. The company pays them for mileage. But rather than drive their own cars, they use a rental for the trip in order not to run up their odometers and (I guess) turn a small profit. I don't know why since they are already well compensated.
Since it's trendy to post personal anecdotes, we own four vehicles for two drivers. A Mazda CX-5, a Toyota FJ cruiser, a Mazda Miata, and a Chevrolet SSR. Obviously two are daily drivers and two are fun cars. If we could swap one of the dailies for a BEV at no cost, we'd be fools not to. It's likely that the next daily to get upgraded will be a BEV. We only have one kid. So for a long trip with all of us, it's no problem to take whatever daily driver is pure gas. If it's just one of us and a kid and the other has the gas car, just take one of the fun cars! Really not an issue at all.
I've never understood this anti-EV argument of driving across the country.
First, you generally only drive across the country if you are (a) poor or (b) have a large group, or (c) both
Poor people are generally not buying brand-new vehicles. They are taking whatever comes in the second-hand market and so while being poor doesn't make one any less valuable as a person, it does mean that their needs aren't that relevant to car manufacturing. There is some relevance as they do affect the resale value of the vehicle but that's fairly minor compared to other factors. If you're not poor and if you're in Tesla's target market, you *fly* across the country. Probably using points and getting upgraded to business class.
When traveling with a large group, you aren't going to take your daily driver. You will want to rent a transport van or an RV or something. But even if you want to take your own car, you usually only have a large group because you have a *family*. And the vast majority of families have more than one vehicle and are in an ideal EV situation where one vehicle is EV and the other is ICE or hybrid.
If you want to make an argument against an EV, it's that the range is too *long*. The range on a Tesla is like 300 miles. I don't drive that in a month. Its hard to justify paying for a huge battery pack when the range of a Nissan Leaf would cover nearly 100% of my driving needs and my wife has a larger ICE vehicle that we can take for anything else.
If anything, I would expect at some point (when production capacity picks up) that Tesla may offer a downgrade battery pack to go after more of the market so people aren't wasting money on battery pack capacity that they don't need.
Although this deserves the +5 (maybe Funny instead of Insightful), the vast majority of people who *pay* with Paypal have a great experience. It's the merchants who choose to accept Paypal that tend to have awful stories of not getting paid. I suspect that part of the reason, though, is that Paypal will accept merchants that Visa/MC would never take on as customers. Although Square seems to have managed to go after a similar market with a much better reputation.
This is what happens when you try to save a few cents on the bill of materials and don't include a 3g radio for remote administration. That way you can just push out updates when security defects are found. Plus you could collect experience data in order to improve future products. (Apologies to the humor impaired)
I'm no Trump defender, but as far as we know, he hasn't gassed anybody. And that would be front page everywhere if he had. The concern with a character like Trump is that his whole brand is about doing shocking things that are out of bounds of historically acceptable behavior. However once the novelty wears off, in order to maintain, more and more ridiculous things will have to happen. Nobody knows where this leads. As much as I dislike Trump, I really don't think it will be him that engages in genocide but we are paving the road to bad things and that's scary.
News sources are not "so skewed." Many of them have their biases. And for daily news they also have a limited amount of time and column space. If you want deeper news analysis, look to weekly news magazines like The Economist and The Atlantic. They are usually very well balanced presenting the nuances of viewpoint. They are also written to a higher reading level. The Economist is conservative (although maybe liberal by US standards) and The Atlantic liberal but both really go into great depth in their examination. If you have to put out a story the next morning, you can't do this and so you should understand the difference between news and analysis.
Hitler didn't campaign on a promise to murder Jews and he didn't say he would start a world war. His appealed to populism on the right to get elected. And things ended up quite badly. There are enough parallels between the current administration and what happened in Germany that one would be foolish not to be concerned.
Hardly. The Washington Post employs an army of fact checkers and works very hard to be accurate. When they declare the president's statements to be false without support evidence it's only because they've provided that evidence so many times in previous articles that their regular readers would get bored hearing it again. Remember they have subscribers. Yes I'm one of them. Once they've thoroughly debunked a statement, the fact that it's a lie can now be stated without repeating the evidence. No idea how this got to +5 unless you were going for a Funny.
Yes but the implementations are all brain-dead in that if you have a Bluetooth mouse receiver inserted, the touchpad turns off even if the bluetooth mouse is out of range! Lenvo fortunately has a hotkey for enabling/disabling the touchpad that is processed by the keyboard.
The issue here is that the reporting was sensationalist rather than a factual inquiry. And the product has been deemed safe by the FDA. I would eat finely-textured ground beef, but I'd expect it to retail for like $0.29/lb. Challenging the FDA decision in reporting would be quite reasonable. Implying that the food is unsafe without offering any evidence really wasn't appropriate. With a high-profile story like this, you need to be less sloppy in your reporting.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
What you get at Sam's club isn't local, grass-fed beef. Now maybe you don't care and I'm not sure that I do. But that's a value question, not a price question. Does Sam's club even sell local, grass-fed beef?
This would only be the case if sales is terribly unmotivated and/or incompetent. Normally when there is a customer issue, sales is the part of the company that has the most motivation to get it resolved. To the rest of the company, a customer issue is a cost center. Sales sees the carrot (future sale if this gets resolved) and hustles for a resolution even if they have to call the support number and wait on hold themselves.
From a customer perspective, what is wrong with asking for support in response to a sales email? If you want me to buy something and I need support on what I already have, seems that the path to a sale is to help me. Using a sales channel for support is what customers are going to do one way or another unless your support is gold standard.
I'm guessing that this got modded down because it was written in an aggressive tone and offered no evidence. It has already been pointed out in this discussion that fuel costs are about 40% of the cost of operating a truck, so you can have a much higher CapEx on the vehicle if you are going to save OpEx over the life. With hybrid/electric cars, there is some room for debate about the rate of return. For trucks that put on many more miles (100k/year is not uncommon for a truck) the payoff will be much quicker and if an electric truck is mechanically viable and only about double the cost of a traditional truck, it would be a no brainer. As this is a new product and since it uses expensive batteries, it will likely be more expensive. Shipping is a capital intensive business and shippers know how to ship OpEx to CapEx and love doing so.
This should get modded down to -1. If you didn't have police protection, somebody would come take 100% of your paycheck. In fact even at 99% tax rate, you're better off than you would be without the police. So 50% is a bargain in that respect. And if you are really paying 50% in taxes, you have pretty good income. Taxes in this country are progressive, so poorer people pay a lower percentage.
The way you keep the bandits away in "taxless" places is by paying extortion fees.
What happens in lawless situations is that people band together to protect each other and there is strength in numbers. This works but involves a significant time contribution as well as personal danger. At some point, separation of labor makes it more efficient to have some people maintain order full time and everybody contribute financially to pay those who maintain order.
Eventually you get to a modern society where you can spend time writing brain-dead posts on slashdot about taxes being unfair. Clearly society can be a victim of it's own success!
Very few retail locations officially accept USD outside of the US. However, in almost all cases, you can talk them into taking it. They will usually penalize you though in terms of the exchange rate.
On the other hand, in the US, it does seem that people are oblivious to the fact that other currencies exist.
Why would you get more money tomorrow? If the price of bitcoin relative to some currency goes up, I'd expect you to lower the amount of bitcoin you expect. The price should be set in USD, CAD, EUR, or some stable currency. The amount of bitcoin needed would have to be dynamically calculated.
It's not trying to "change the rules" of the election. Nobody is suggesting installing Hillary. The political term is "mandate" and the Republicans clearly didn't get one. That's why they are struggling so much to govern right now. You don't have a mandate with 49% of the vote.
Do I really, truly, honestly think that's what the Republicans are all about? Certainly not all of them. There may be no good neo-Nazis, but I have no doubt that there are good Republicans as individuals. However, having watched the Republican primary debates, every single candidate would answer each and every question with an inspiring vision of a great society followed by declaring that they would achieve that outcome by cutting taxes for the rich.
I don't believe that cutting taxes for the rich is a panacea and I can't imagine any thinking person actually subscribes to that. So if you are going to stand up and proclaim such a thing, you aren't being intellectually honest.
The Democrats consistently put policy before politics and genuinely believe in their policies (even though some of them are a bit unreasonable). The Republicans put politics first because they only policy they care about is corporate welfare.
Many of the ideas that the Democrats put forward scare the life out of me, but at least I know that, when elected, they will try to implement policies that they think will make our country better. The Republicans, tax cuts for the rich only. Bad social policy that tries to help people isn't ideal. But it's better than bankrupting the country to put a few extra bucks in billionaires' pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
Money might be important then, but the thing to do would be go to back to your current employer and see if they can close part of the gap. That's much better than changing to a job you hate. There was a time where our salaries got a bit low compared to industry and all I had to do was tell my boss that the numbers being offered were so much higher comparatively that it would be irresponsible not to consider it. HR reevaluated what we pay and I think everybody got a raise. Money really shouldn't be that important in the sense that your skills have a market value and it's unlikely that there are going to be offers that are 20-30% apart regularly. And if there are, it still makes sense to try to go with the better job.
Which is one of the reasons that we are seeing more resistance to "controversial" speakers at places like college campuses. If somebody who disagrees with you is genuinely seeking the truth, you should engage them. You may both learn something. If they are going to pretend to engage in debate but just push an agenda even after it is disproven, it's irresponsible to give them a platform. We should judge the validity of somebody's statements not on what they say but on whether the genuinely seek the truth
Yes he would have to make one 20 minute stop at a super charger. At the same time he can urinate and eat. The who/e /. attitude toward EVs will change when they start putting superchargers outside of stripper bars. Then suddenly everybody will be buying them and declaring that the "most convenient" supercharger is at strippers-r-us.
I'm not saying a used Leaf is good for you. I'm saying that for *most* *families* with multiple vehicles, having one of them be a BEV makes sense. Everybody's situation is different. You describe driving it for ten years. I can't actually find it in our HOA rules, but it seems as if there is a rule against owning any vehicle more than five years old. You would certainly think so the way people complain if there is any older-looking vehicle parked overnight. But I know very well that my situation isn't typical in that regard. One counter example doesn't change a many/most statement.
I hope these are rhetorical questions since I certainly am not the right person to ask Leaf-specific questions! You can charge a leaf in 8 hours from a standard wall charger so for most people you don't need anything special. The cars come with 8 year / 100k miles on the batteries and, as far as I know, transfer when the car is sold. There are no eight year old Leaf's so you would have to hypothesize the resale value. A BEV has much less maintenance and less to break than an ICE car although I would guess that repairs are more expensive. All this has to be balanced against fuel savings. As has already been mentioned, batteries don't degrade that much so worrying about residual range doesn't seem to be a big concern although as has also already been mentioned don't buy an older Leaf as the batteries were passively cooled and that did lead to degradation. Get a model new enough to have active cooling. The good new is with all those older models out there, junkyard parts are probably plentiful if you need a non-EV component
Really? For a used car, you can't beat the NIssan Leaf. You can get one 3 years old with under 50k miles for under $10k. Considering that they are $35k new, that's a steal. Plus under $10k is just a good price for a car. Go a year or two older and you are in the $5k ranger. Its shocking how cheap they are. Now that's terrible if you purchased yours at full retail and want to sell, but its a great deal in the used market. I assume most new purchasers got $15k in tax credits, though, so their actual price was closer to $20k. Still awful in terms of depreciation though. Glad I never bought one new, but happy to get a bargain on the aftermath.
The OP said "Wow, it must be a lot of fun driving across the country driving 2 hours at a time and having to wait 20 minutes." He definitely did use the phrase "across the country." It's clear that BEVs don't work for everybody. Anybody who claims that they do would be making a fool of themselves. But I would argue that we are getting to a point where most two (or more) vehicle families would probably be better off if one of them were a BEV. I work with a good number of people who drive across their states for business. They own very high end gase vehicles. The company pays them for mileage. But rather than drive their own cars, they use a rental for the trip in order not to run up their odometers and (I guess) turn a small profit. I don't know why since they are already well compensated. Since it's trendy to post personal anecdotes, we own four vehicles for two drivers. A Mazda CX-5, a Toyota FJ cruiser, a Mazda Miata, and a Chevrolet SSR. Obviously two are daily drivers and two are fun cars. If we could swap one of the dailies for a BEV at no cost, we'd be fools not to. It's likely that the next daily to get upgraded will be a BEV. We only have one kid. So for a long trip with all of us, it's no problem to take whatever daily driver is pure gas. If it's just one of us and a kid and the other has the gas car, just take one of the fun cars! Really not an issue at all.
I've never understood this anti-EV argument of driving across the country. First, you generally only drive across the country if you are (a) poor or (b) have a large group, or (c) both Poor people are generally not buying brand-new vehicles. They are taking whatever comes in the second-hand market and so while being poor doesn't make one any less valuable as a person, it does mean that their needs aren't that relevant to car manufacturing. There is some relevance as they do affect the resale value of the vehicle but that's fairly minor compared to other factors. If you're not poor and if you're in Tesla's target market, you *fly* across the country. Probably using points and getting upgraded to business class. When traveling with a large group, you aren't going to take your daily driver. You will want to rent a transport van or an RV or something. But even if you want to take your own car, you usually only have a large group because you have a *family*. And the vast majority of families have more than one vehicle and are in an ideal EV situation where one vehicle is EV and the other is ICE or hybrid. If you want to make an argument against an EV, it's that the range is too *long*. The range on a Tesla is like 300 miles. I don't drive that in a month. Its hard to justify paying for a huge battery pack when the range of a Nissan Leaf would cover nearly 100% of my driving needs and my wife has a larger ICE vehicle that we can take for anything else. If anything, I would expect at some point (when production capacity picks up) that Tesla may offer a downgrade battery pack to go after more of the market so people aren't wasting money on battery pack capacity that they don't need.
Although this deserves the +5 (maybe Funny instead of Insightful), the vast majority of people who *pay* with Paypal have a great experience. It's the merchants who choose to accept Paypal that tend to have awful stories of not getting paid. I suspect that part of the reason, though, is that Paypal will accept merchants that Visa/MC would never take on as customers. Although Square seems to have managed to go after a similar market with a much better reputation.
This is what happens when you try to save a few cents on the bill of materials and don't include a 3g radio for remote administration. That way you can just push out updates when security defects are found. Plus you could collect experience data in order to improve future products. (Apologies to the humor impaired)
I'm no Trump defender, but as far as we know, he hasn't gassed anybody. And that would be front page everywhere if he had. The concern with a character like Trump is that his whole brand is about doing shocking things that are out of bounds of historically acceptable behavior. However once the novelty wears off, in order to maintain, more and more ridiculous things will have to happen. Nobody knows where this leads. As much as I dislike Trump, I really don't think it will be him that engages in genocide but we are paving the road to bad things and that's scary.
News sources are not "so skewed." Many of them have their biases. And for daily news they also have a limited amount of time and column space. If you want deeper news analysis, look to weekly news magazines like The Economist and The Atlantic. They are usually very well balanced presenting the nuances of viewpoint. They are also written to a higher reading level. The Economist is conservative (although maybe liberal by US standards) and The Atlantic liberal but both really go into great depth in their examination. If you have to put out a story the next morning, you can't do this and so you should understand the difference between news and analysis.
Hitler didn't campaign on a promise to murder Jews and he didn't say he would start a world war. His appealed to populism on the right to get elected. And things ended up quite badly. There are enough parallels between the current administration and what happened in Germany that one would be foolish not to be concerned.
Hardly. The Washington Post employs an army of fact checkers and works very hard to be accurate. When they declare the president's statements to be false without support evidence it's only because they've provided that evidence so many times in previous articles that their regular readers would get bored hearing it again. Remember they have subscribers. Yes I'm one of them. Once they've thoroughly debunked a statement, the fact that it's a lie can now be stated without repeating the evidence. No idea how this got to +5 unless you were going for a Funny.
Yes but the implementations are all brain-dead in that if you have a Bluetooth mouse receiver inserted, the touchpad turns off even if the bluetooth mouse is out of range! Lenvo fortunately has a hotkey for enabling/disabling the touchpad that is processed by the keyboard.
The issue here is that the reporting was sensationalist rather than a factual inquiry. And the product has been deemed safe by the FDA. I would eat finely-textured ground beef, but I'd expect it to retail for like $0.29/lb. Challenging the FDA decision in reporting would be quite reasonable. Implying that the food is unsafe without offering any evidence really wasn't appropriate. With a high-profile story like this, you need to be less sloppy in your reporting. http://www.reuters.com/article...
What you get at Sam's club isn't local, grass-fed beef. Now maybe you don't care and I'm not sure that I do. But that's a value question, not a price question. Does Sam's club even sell local, grass-fed beef?
This would only be the case if sales is terribly unmotivated and/or incompetent. Normally when there is a customer issue, sales is the part of the company that has the most motivation to get it resolved. To the rest of the company, a customer issue is a cost center. Sales sees the carrot (future sale if this gets resolved) and hustles for a resolution even if they have to call the support number and wait on hold themselves.
From a customer perspective, what is wrong with asking for support in response to a sales email? If you want me to buy something and I need support on what I already have, seems that the path to a sale is to help me. Using a sales channel for support is what customers are going to do one way or another unless your support is gold standard.
I'm guessing that this got modded down because it was written in an aggressive tone and offered no evidence. It has already been pointed out in this discussion that fuel costs are about 40% of the cost of operating a truck, so you can have a much higher CapEx on the vehicle if you are going to save OpEx over the life. With hybrid/electric cars, there is some room for debate about the rate of return. For trucks that put on many more miles (100k/year is not uncommon for a truck) the payoff will be much quicker and if an electric truck is mechanically viable and only about double the cost of a traditional truck, it would be a no brainer. As this is a new product and since it uses expensive batteries, it will likely be more expensive. Shipping is a capital intensive business and shippers know how to ship OpEx to CapEx and love doing so.
This should get modded down to -1. If you didn't have police protection, somebody would come take 100% of your paycheck. In fact even at 99% tax rate, you're better off than you would be without the police. So 50% is a bargain in that respect. And if you are really paying 50% in taxes, you have pretty good income. Taxes in this country are progressive, so poorer people pay a lower percentage.
The way you keep the bandits away in "taxless" places is by paying extortion fees. What happens in lawless situations is that people band together to protect each other and there is strength in numbers. This works but involves a significant time contribution as well as personal danger. At some point, separation of labor makes it more efficient to have some people maintain order full time and everybody contribute financially to pay those who maintain order. Eventually you get to a modern society where you can spend time writing brain-dead posts on slashdot about taxes being unfair. Clearly society can be a victim of it's own success!
Very few retail locations officially accept USD outside of the US. However, in almost all cases, you can talk them into taking it. They will usually penalize you though in terms of the exchange rate. On the other hand, in the US, it does seem that people are oblivious to the fact that other currencies exist.
Why would you get more money tomorrow? If the price of bitcoin relative to some currency goes up, I'd expect you to lower the amount of bitcoin you expect. The price should be set in USD, CAD, EUR, or some stable currency. The amount of bitcoin needed would have to be dynamically calculated.
It's not trying to "change the rules" of the election. Nobody is suggesting installing Hillary. The political term is "mandate" and the Republicans clearly didn't get one. That's why they are struggling so much to govern right now. You don't have a mandate with 49% of the vote. Do I really, truly, honestly think that's what the Republicans are all about? Certainly not all of them. There may be no good neo-Nazis, but I have no doubt that there are good Republicans as individuals. However, having watched the Republican primary debates, every single candidate would answer each and every question with an inspiring vision of a great society followed by declaring that they would achieve that outcome by cutting taxes for the rich. I don't believe that cutting taxes for the rich is a panacea and I can't imagine any thinking person actually subscribes to that. So if you are going to stand up and proclaim such a thing, you aren't being intellectually honest. The Democrats consistently put policy before politics and genuinely believe in their policies (even though some of them are a bit unreasonable). The Republicans put politics first because they only policy they care about is corporate welfare. Many of the ideas that the Democrats put forward scare the life out of me, but at least I know that, when elected, they will try to implement policies that they think will make our country better. The Republicans, tax cuts for the rich only. Bad social policy that tries to help people isn't ideal. But it's better than bankrupting the country to put a few extra bucks in billionaires' pockets.