Apple turned a niche product into a mass-market good. That's a hard thing to do. You may argue that I fell for Apple marketing (I tried to buy an iPhone when they were announced, but they wouldn't let me pre-order one so I got a Blackberry instead). But what's less relevant is that people like my dad who never even had a mobile phone went out and bought the iPhone. Were the technology advances massive? No but they were non-zero. Now, if you don't have a smart phone people look at you funny. So it was a huge inflection point for adoption.
When computers went from being the size of a house to something that you can have in your house, the world changed dramatically. Right now, electric cars are going from something that has limited applicability to something with large-scale applicability.
Some of us have spouses and kids and so we already have more than one car. Making one of them electric is just the sensible thing to do. Especially for things like the daily trip to the grocery store where ICEs are terribly inefficient. In my neighborhood, NEVs are already popular. A family with to adults and a young kid may have to gas cars and a NEV. We are talking now about one gas car and one Tesla instead. For about the same amount of money. In fact I bet most households already have more than one car. The only people from whom this *doesn't* make sense are those who are no longer living in their parents basement, but not yet married. Not sure if we can find anybody on./ who meets that criteria, but if we can, their comments would probably be interesting.
When the iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary and we talked about it. Now, Apple is just a consumer electronics manufacturing company where their products last two to three years and then end up in the scrap heap.
Electric cars are *huge*. They will reshape our lives and our environment. In some ways we will be better, in others worse. Transportation uses up *huge* amounts of our time and resources. It's one of the reasons that many people like to live and work in urban cores. But what if we had self-driving electric cars. Would be a disaster in terms of suburban sprawl. Electric cars don't pay fuel tax. So we will have to find another way to fund our infrastructure. At first they will reduce fossil fuel usage. But the lower cost will encourage more driving.
Electric cars are part of some of the biggest issues facing our time. Mobile phones not so much anymore now that they are accessible to everybody. Electric cars may transform our lives as much as the original gasoline cars. I bet back then some people thought of cars as fancy toys for rich people too. Same thing with mobile phones only a decade ago.
Tesla is now price-competitive with the entrenched players forcing them to react. That is if they deliver. But their track record so far is pretty good.
When the Prius was high tech, we talked about it a lot. Toyota was (and perhaps is) on the cutting edge of hybrid technology. My next vehicle will probably be the Avalon hybrid although I would love if a RAV4 hybrid were available for purchase. When Toyota used the ring and planet gears, I marveled at it. Now it's yesterday's news. If Toyota and BMW add some interesting new technology (iPod docks are definitely not exciting), I hope that you will write a summary and submit it!
Maybe because electric cars are a piece of revolutionary technology that we are all watching be developed right under our eyes. Many advancements these days require real specialized knowledge to fully appreciate.
These guys are actually *shipping* cars. And the last barrier to mass adoptions has been price. A 35k electric car is within reach for probably half of the population. It's going to be a very disruptive technology. Everything from urban planning to electric grids will be affected.
So yeah, we all want to know about this stuff and discuss it. Many of us will probably even *buy* this. Some./ are in a financial position to own one of Tesla's existing production cars and talk about their experience. As I don't know anybody who owns one, I find that to be interesting.
Sometimes, in a society, the fact that we all agree is actually more important that what we agree on. As an example, in the US, we drive on the right (as in opposite of left) side of the road. Other countries have chosen the left side. The choice is arbitrary. But, if I decide that I'm special, and drive on the opposite side, I create quite a dangerous situation. Here, there is no moral choice in terms of left or right. But once a decision is made, going against it *is* a moral issue.
It's not necessarily immoral to not curb your dog. I know many rural dwellers whose yards are minefields. But when a community sets these requirements, not following it suddenly becomes a big deal. Other people have made decisions based on a expectation of compliance. If I know that there will be dog droppings all over, I would pay less for a house in a community. And I would probably choose different landscaping.
Current taxi regulations clearly have their problems. And I'm for fixing them. But you do that by trying to get them changed, not violating them. Unless you think it's okay to drive around on the wrong side of the street hurling feces out your window.
I am assuming that your risk of death is constant regardless of whether you are in a medallion taxi or an uber taxi. That seems to be supported by the data. From an economic standpoint, dying is cheap. It's staying alive with serious injuries that gets expensive.
One of the reasons we feel so attached to these organizations is the hazing rituals. Once you've gone through that, you love something. Our parents generation went through quite a bit of abuse getting into various "tribes". Therefore, they have fond memories and pass on their enthusiasm somewhat to the next generation.
Now that we've eliminated hazing, I imagine that participation will decline in a few generations.
The free market cuts both ways. Some aspects of our profession are showing an excess of supply. Desktop IT support probably has a surplus of workers because it is taking less and less people to do machine administration.
There seems to be a lack of high-end programmers. At my employer we have jobs that can't be filled even though we are paying above market. (You have to be *way* above market to get people to move and, if they are really good, there current employers fight to keep them)
There seems to be no lack of mobile app developers and no way to tell the good ones from the bad.
Uber is cheaper than a real taxi. They have better customer service. The drivers generally drive in a much more polite way. It probably *feels* safer. But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt. But that risk is hidden. It's unlikely that most uber users are thinking about this possible consequence.
Look how many automobile owners view liability insurance a something that the evil government makes them buy rather than something that protects them financially.
See the same example in the US wrt health insurance. I was without insurance for about three months between jobs one time. Whenever I went out to do anything active (like play soccer or roller skate) I would think about the fact that, if I got hurt, the financial damage would be devastating.
Ann Swidler uses this example in her Sociology classes. Imagine an airline that claimed they were half the price of anybody else because they didn't maintain their planes. Some people would chose to take this. But it's not allowed in the market.
At some point, if uber isn't stopped, traditional taxi companies will end up going out of business. They have insane costs between medallions and insurance (Around 2k/vehicle/month). Then all we will have are cowboy uber drivers and we're back in the wild west.
This is a classic example of why we need *enforced* regulations. When there are *unenforced* regulations, the honest businesses lose to the dishonest ones and that's a shame.
We used to call self-driving big-rigs freight trains. Okay it took one or two people to operate the whole fleet, but basically solved the same problems.
Looks like I stand corrected, again. The last time we had this discussion I said the contracts were available and then had to retract my statement. This time I said they are unavailable and have to retract again. The next time SolarCity comes up, I will try to resolve the contradiction. But thanks for correcting me.
We may not *like* PayPal. But the services they provide don't require being a bank. Specifically they don't engage in fractional-reserve lending, don't lend customer money, and don't rely on the FDIC for insurance. They *feel* like a bank sometimes but are, in fact, not a bank in the way that US laws define it.
Uber on the other hand declares that they aren't a tax company but provides services that only a taxi company is allowed to provide. Therein lies the difference.
I think that there is a fair argument that the regulations should be updated to treat PayPal like a bank but, for better or worse, they comply with current laws whereas Uber clearly does not seem to do so.
There's a bad joke about a murder suspect testifying in his own defense. The prosecutor asks him if he knows what the penalty is for perjury. The answer is "A lot better than the penalty for murder."
"Willing to travel." Maybe if this is to do software development in a remote location, this could have somewhat of a discriminatory effect. Willingness to visit customers makes a big difference, though, in how valuable an employee is. Sure it sucks when you have a family. But it's probably worth 30k/year.
For *large* vehicles (garbage trucks, buses) that stop all the time, you can use non-battery hybrid systems like hydraulics. Just have the braking system build up a lot of pressure and use it to accelerate again.
SolarCity seems to be a pretty shady organization. I defended them in a previous thread only to have to retract my comment. They claim "open contracts" but what they mean is that you can see the contract *after* you've talked to a pushy sales rep, not before. And I think there's an NDA which is why nobody has dissected it online. The *principle* of a no-money-down solar installation makes sense and I have no doubt that this *could* be done in a way that both the provider and customer benefit. But SolarCity should not get any positive mention here.
They think it's morally outrageous that the poor carry the financial burden because poor people are notoriously bad at paying their bills and even worse at paying them on time!
Utility companies have complained loudly about how home grid-tie systems cause havoc to grid operations. This eliminates that objection. Now they are pointing out that, due to their pricing structure, the poor end up subsidizing the wealthy. As we *need* a grid, I think that this argument has merit. I doubt that any wealthy people would be willing to go off-grid entirely just to save a monthly connection fee. I would love to use this system, but I would still want the grid as backup and would probably pay $20-$30/month to keep my grid connection. I don't know how much grid maintenance costs vs. energy generation, but my total bill is never more than $200/month. If the grid maintenance is more than 15%, things become more challenging.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple turned a niche product into a mass-market good. That's a hard thing to do. You may argue that I fell for Apple marketing (I tried to buy an iPhone when they were announced, but they wouldn't let me pre-order one so I got a Blackberry instead). But what's less relevant is that people like my dad who never even had a mobile phone went out and bought the iPhone. Were the technology advances massive? No but they were non-zero. Now, if you don't have a smart phone people look at you funny. So it was a huge inflection point for adoption.
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle. Basically fancy electric golf carts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
When computers went from being the size of a house to something that you can have in your house, the world changed dramatically. Right now, electric cars are going from something that has limited applicability to something with large-scale applicability.
Some of us have spouses and kids and so we already have more than one car. Making one of them electric is just the sensible thing to do. Especially for things like the daily trip to the grocery store where ICEs are terribly inefficient. In my neighborhood, NEVs are already popular. A family with to adults and a young kid may have to gas cars and a NEV. We are talking now about one gas car and one Tesla instead. For about the same amount of money. In fact I bet most households already have more than one car. The only people from whom this *doesn't* make sense are those who are no longer living in their parents basement, but not yet married. Not sure if we can find anybody on ./ who meets that criteria, but if we can, their comments would probably be interesting.
When the iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary and we talked about it. Now, Apple is just a consumer electronics manufacturing company where their products last two to three years and then end up in the scrap heap. Electric cars are *huge*. They will reshape our lives and our environment. In some ways we will be better, in others worse. Transportation uses up *huge* amounts of our time and resources. It's one of the reasons that many people like to live and work in urban cores. But what if we had self-driving electric cars. Would be a disaster in terms of suburban sprawl. Electric cars don't pay fuel tax. So we will have to find another way to fund our infrastructure. At first they will reduce fossil fuel usage. But the lower cost will encourage more driving. Electric cars are part of some of the biggest issues facing our time. Mobile phones not so much anymore now that they are accessible to everybody. Electric cars may transform our lives as much as the original gasoline cars. I bet back then some people thought of cars as fancy toys for rich people too. Same thing with mobile phones only a decade ago. Tesla is now price-competitive with the entrenched players forcing them to react. That is if they deliver. But their track record so far is pretty good.
When the Prius was high tech, we talked about it a lot. Toyota was (and perhaps is) on the cutting edge of hybrid technology. My next vehicle will probably be the Avalon hybrid although I would love if a RAV4 hybrid were available for purchase. When Toyota used the ring and planet gears, I marveled at it. Now it's yesterday's news. If Toyota and BMW add some interesting new technology (iPod docks are definitely not exciting), I hope that you will write a summary and submit it!
Maybe because electric cars are a piece of revolutionary technology that we are all watching be developed right under our eyes. Many advancements these days require real specialized knowledge to fully appreciate. These guys are actually *shipping* cars. And the last barrier to mass adoptions has been price. A 35k electric car is within reach for probably half of the population. It's going to be a very disruptive technology. Everything from urban planning to electric grids will be affected. So yeah, we all want to know about this stuff and discuss it. Many of us will probably even *buy* this. Some ./ are in a financial position to own one of Tesla's existing production cars and talk about their experience. As I don't know anybody who owns one, I find that to be interesting.
Sometimes, in a society, the fact that we all agree is actually more important that what we agree on. As an example, in the US, we drive on the right (as in opposite of left) side of the road. Other countries have chosen the left side. The choice is arbitrary. But, if I decide that I'm special, and drive on the opposite side, I create quite a dangerous situation. Here, there is no moral choice in terms of left or right. But once a decision is made, going against it *is* a moral issue. It's not necessarily immoral to not curb your dog. I know many rural dwellers whose yards are minefields. But when a community sets these requirements, not following it suddenly becomes a big deal. Other people have made decisions based on a expectation of compliance. If I know that there will be dog droppings all over, I would pay less for a house in a community. And I would probably choose different landscaping. Current taxi regulations clearly have their problems. And I'm for fixing them. But you do that by trying to get them changed, not violating them. Unless you think it's okay to drive around on the wrong side of the street hurling feces out your window.
I am assuming that your risk of death is constant regardless of whether you are in a medallion taxi or an uber taxi. That seems to be supported by the data. From an economic standpoint, dying is cheap. It's staying alive with serious injuries that gets expensive.
More related to Cognitive Dissonance Theory ( http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/... )
One of the reasons we feel so attached to these organizations is the hazing rituals. Once you've gone through that, you love something. Our parents generation went through quite a bit of abuse getting into various "tribes". Therefore, they have fond memories and pass on their enthusiasm somewhat to the next generation. Now that we've eliminated hazing, I imagine that participation will decline in a few generations.
The free market cuts both ways. Some aspects of our profession are showing an excess of supply. Desktop IT support probably has a surplus of workers because it is taking less and less people to do machine administration. There seems to be a lack of high-end programmers. At my employer we have jobs that can't be filled even though we are paying above market. (You have to be *way* above market to get people to move and, if they are really good, there current employers fight to keep them) There seems to be no lack of mobile app developers and no way to tell the good ones from the bad.
Uber is cheaper than a real taxi. They have better customer service. The drivers generally drive in a much more polite way. It probably *feels* safer. But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt. But that risk is hidden. It's unlikely that most uber users are thinking about this possible consequence. Look how many automobile owners view liability insurance a something that the evil government makes them buy rather than something that protects them financially. See the same example in the US wrt health insurance. I was without insurance for about three months between jobs one time. Whenever I went out to do anything active (like play soccer or roller skate) I would think about the fact that, if I got hurt, the financial damage would be devastating. Ann Swidler uses this example in her Sociology classes. Imagine an airline that claimed they were half the price of anybody else because they didn't maintain their planes. Some people would chose to take this. But it's not allowed in the market. At some point, if uber isn't stopped, traditional taxi companies will end up going out of business. They have insane costs between medallions and insurance (Around 2k/vehicle/month). Then all we will have are cowboy uber drivers and we're back in the wild west. This is a classic example of why we need *enforced* regulations. When there are *unenforced* regulations, the honest businesses lose to the dishonest ones and that's a shame.
We used to call self-driving big-rigs freight trains. Okay it took one or two people to operate the whole fleet, but basically solved the same problems.
Looks like I stand corrected, again. The last time we had this discussion I said the contracts were available and then had to retract my statement. This time I said they are unavailable and have to retract again. The next time SolarCity comes up, I will try to resolve the contradiction. But thanks for correcting me.
We may not *like* PayPal. But the services they provide don't require being a bank. Specifically they don't engage in fractional-reserve lending, don't lend customer money, and don't rely on the FDIC for insurance. They *feel* like a bank sometimes but are, in fact, not a bank in the way that US laws define it. Uber on the other hand declares that they aren't a tax company but provides services that only a taxi company is allowed to provide. Therein lies the difference. I think that there is a fair argument that the regulations should be updated to treat PayPal like a bank but, for better or worse, they comply with current laws whereas Uber clearly does not seem to do so.
There's a bad joke about a murder suspect testifying in his own defense. The prosecutor asks him if he knows what the penalty is for perjury. The answer is "A lot better than the penalty for murder."
Or how about just list the job salary and eliminate anybody who considers themselves too experienced?
"Willing to travel." Maybe if this is to do software development in a remote location, this could have somewhat of a discriminatory effect. Willingness to visit customers makes a big difference, though, in how valuable an employee is. Sure it sucks when you have a family. But it's probably worth 30k/year.
For *large* vehicles (garbage trucks, buses) that stop all the time, you can use non-battery hybrid systems like hydraulics. Just have the braking system build up a lot of pressure and use it to accelerate again.
SolarCity won't let you see their contract until you talk to a pushy sales person.
SolarCity seems to be a pretty shady organization. I defended them in a previous thread only to have to retract my comment. They claim "open contracts" but what they mean is that you can see the contract *after* you've talked to a pushy sales rep, not before. And I think there's an NDA which is why nobody has dissected it online. The *principle* of a no-money-down solar installation makes sense and I have no doubt that this *could* be done in a way that both the provider and customer benefit. But SolarCity should not get any positive mention here.
They think it's morally outrageous that the poor carry the financial burden because poor people are notoriously bad at paying their bills and even worse at paying them on time!
You are correct. I did intend to say market makers here. But I still got modded up!
Utility companies have complained loudly about how home grid-tie systems cause havoc to grid operations. This eliminates that objection. Now they are pointing out that, due to their pricing structure, the poor end up subsidizing the wealthy. As we *need* a grid, I think that this argument has merit. I doubt that any wealthy people would be willing to go off-grid entirely just to save a monthly connection fee. I would love to use this system, but I would still want the grid as backup and would probably pay $20-$30/month to keep my grid connection. I don't know how much grid maintenance costs vs. energy generation, but my total bill is never more than $200/month. If the grid maintenance is more than 15%, things become more challenging.