Sure - sounds great. But it's not me losing out here. It's the dealer. The dealers are offering end of lease residuals in the region of $12-15k for 30k miles. If they want to take a $4-7k loss on every vehicle they have to hand on, that's fine by me.
For me, my eGolf lease cost ~$15000 total across 3 years... Minus $7500 of federal tax credits... Minus $2500 of california rebate. So grand total, $5000 for 3 years of owning a vehicle from brand new, with 0 fuel costs (since charging is paid for by my employer). The idea that a $30,000 vehicle will only depreciate by $5000 in 3 years is ludicrous - KBB confirms that in that time it's actually depreciated by about $19,000. And that's completely ignoring the $3000 saved on never having to pay for a drop of gas across 30,000 miles of driving.
70mpg is far from better milage - my eGolf gets 129mpge. And that's before you consider the fact that my employer pays for all the electricity to charge it.
I ended up paying a total of slightly less than $5000 over 3 years to own the car, including all fuel for it. To drive 30,000 miles in a petrol car would have cost me $3000 in fuel alone, further, the value of the car would have depreciated by far more than $5000 across 3 years. Long story short - sure I "paid money for nothing"... if you ignore the utility of having a car for 3 years. I in fact got a far better deal than if I'd paid money for something.
And that's all ignoring your idiotic "ride a motorbike, turn yourself into a road crayon" idea. I'll pass on having a 35 times higher likelihood of being seriously injured thanks.
No shit. I lease my eGolf. Why - I leased it 2 years ago, and could get an 80 mile range car. Today for the same price I could get a 240 mile range car from Chevrolet, or a slightly nicer 120 mile range car from VW. I'm sure in a further 3-4 years I'll be able to get a 400 mile range car for the same price again.
It'd be completely crazy to bind yourself into a technology that's advancing so quickly at the moment.
Sure, that's potentially a problem. However, in practice, it's been demonstrated that the rate of this occurring is extremely low. That is, I can't find any single recorded case of this occurring. I'm sure it probably does occur - but it's so rare that it goes completely unreported. It's also fairly easy to deal with, as the AC covered.
On the other hand, voter ID laws are well documented to cause hundreds of thousands of people to be unable to vote, either because they couldn't afford to get an ID card; couldn't get the necessary time off work to get an ID card; couldn't afford the necessary time off work to get an ID card; or simply had all the locations at which you could get an ID card removed from their local area so that they had to travel significant distances to be able to get hold of an ID card.
I find it very strange that you're concerned about a few dozen people failing to get their vote, but are trying to solve that problem by causing thousands of people to not be able to vote.
Why on earth would an ID be required? It's a needless extra complication for no good reason. You send out the voting cards to all registered voters, they show up at the polls, you score them off the list as they receive their ballot. Done. Everyone is identified, no one needs to get expensive, or complex to get ID cards.
IDs don't make voting any more secure, they only make it harder to vote.
The sweet spot is well known - it's around 50-60. That's why insurance companies offer people in that age bracket the lowest rates - they have the fewest accidents.
It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account.
That's not a loophole - that's just straight up illegal. As I said - it's an opt-in. Companies operating in the EU are not allowed to collect data on people without their consent.
The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.
Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.
Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.
That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.
LEO is between 84 and 120 miles. Plus, your calculation was incorrect the correct result is between 1ms and 1.5ms of latency added. However, the communication between the sats in space will be at the speed of light in a vacuum, rather than the speed of electrical signalling in copper, or the speed of light in glass. Meaning that in the copper case, as soon as you're trying to transmit a signal 50 miles, space is the faster router. In the case of fibre connections, as soon as you're trying to transmit more than 400 miles, space is faster.
In practice, that means for 99% of communications on the internet, LEO is lower latency than ground based communication.
No it's not - the round trip to low earth orbit at the speed of light is less than 1ms, and the fact that signals travel in a vacuum between sats (rather than in glass or copper along the ground) means that at any distance between end points over 400 miles, latency is LOWER via LEO than via ground signalling systems.
No they won't. The reason that current satelite internet connections have high latency is because they're in geosynchronous orbit, 36,000 miles away. LEO (where musk is intending to put his network) is substantially closer (84 miles). Sending a signal by radio only 168 miles extra has a neglidgable (less than 1 ms) impact on latency. In fact, given that signals between the sats will be light travelling in a (near) vacuum) they may actually get there faster than ones travelling in glass along the ground (depending on the total distances involved).
Right - so again, the solution is increased regulation. Introduce a constitutional amendment that stops bribery being considered free speech and stops it being legal.
What makes you think it's *deregulation* that will lower the barriers to entry?
The thing actually that will lower the barrier to entry is regulation to stop the current players using their current scummy tactics to keep the competition out.
Except that the eGolf is actually $28500, because of the federal rebate.
Also, KBB says a 3 year old Golf with 36000 miles on it is worth $9900, but a 3 year old eGolf with 36000 miles on it is worth $14200, so your resale values are deffinately off - the eGolf will be worth more (3 years was used here because that's the oldest eGolf available).
Here's the purchase version of it over 3 years: Golf - $24k 12000 miles/year @$2.60 per gallon and 30mpg = $3120 Service costs - $300/yr = $900 Sold for $9900 TCoO = $6040/year
eGolf - $28.5k 12000 miles/year @ 4m/kWh and $0.11/kWh = $990 Car sold for $14.2k TCoO = $5096/year
Uhhh... LiIon hasn't improved significantly since the 1990s? What the hell are you talking about man?
In 1990 a LiIon battery could store around 75Wh/kg, today a LiIon battery can store around 260Wh/kg... Further to that, the price has dropped by about 5 fold in the last 5 years alone.
The problem is that as soon as one vehicle stops, all vehicles must stop behind it, or slowly traverse complex points systems. That's not a requirement here.
Range isn't traded off at all. These things have a 500 mile range. That's 8 hours continuous driving at a trucker's maximum speed. They've already published that they'll be able to charge to 400 miles range in 30 minutes from a mega charger. That means you can get to 180 miles in only 10 minutes.
180 miles is another 3 hours of driving. That's your trucker's 11 hours maximum driving time covered with only 10 minutes spent charging.
That means these are completely open to long haul trucking with basically indefinite range, as long as the mega charger network rolls out fine.
They already announced that the TCO is roughly 20% lower than that of a diesel truck when electricity is priced at $0.07 (which is the price they intend to charge at mega charger stations).
Slashdot Mirror
Most electric cars ship with a 10 year warranty on their battery pack.
Sure - sounds great. But it's not me losing out here. It's the dealer. The dealers are offering end of lease residuals in the region of $12-15k for 30k miles. If they want to take a $4-7k loss on every vehicle they have to hand on, that's fine by me.
For me, my eGolf lease cost ~$15000 total across 3 years... Minus $7500 of federal tax credits... Minus $2500 of california rebate. So grand total, $5000 for 3 years of owning a vehicle from brand new, with 0 fuel costs (since charging is paid for by my employer). The idea that a $30,000 vehicle will only depreciate by $5000 in 3 years is ludicrous - KBB confirms that in that time it's actually depreciated by about $19,000. And that's completely ignoring the $3000 saved on never having to pay for a drop of gas across 30,000 miles of driving.
70mpg is far from better milage - my eGolf gets 129mpge. And that's before you consider the fact that my employer pays for all the electricity to charge it.
I ended up paying a total of slightly less than $5000 over 3 years to own the car, including all fuel for it. To drive 30,000 miles in a petrol car would have cost me $3000 in fuel alone, further, the value of the car would have depreciated by far more than $5000 across 3 years. Long story short - sure I "paid money for nothing"... if you ignore the utility of having a car for 3 years. I in fact got a far better deal than if I'd paid money for something.
And that's all ignoring your idiotic "ride a motorbike, turn yourself into a road crayon" idea. I'll pass on having a 35 times higher likelihood of being seriously injured thanks.
No shit. I lease my eGolf. Why - I leased it 2 years ago, and could get an 80 mile range car. Today for the same price I could get a 240 mile range car from Chevrolet, or a slightly nicer 120 mile range car from VW. I'm sure in a further 3-4 years I'll be able to get a 400 mile range car for the same price again.
It'd be completely crazy to bind yourself into a technology that's advancing so quickly at the moment.
Sure, that's potentially a problem. However, in practice, it's been demonstrated that the rate of this occurring is extremely low. That is, I can't find any single recorded case of this occurring. I'm sure it probably does occur - but it's so rare that it goes completely unreported. It's also fairly easy to deal with, as the AC covered.
On the other hand, voter ID laws are well documented to cause hundreds of thousands of people to be unable to vote, either because they couldn't afford to get an ID card; couldn't get the necessary time off work to get an ID card; couldn't afford the necessary time off work to get an ID card; or simply had all the locations at which you could get an ID card removed from their local area so that they had to travel significant distances to be able to get hold of an ID card.
I find it very strange that you're concerned about a few dozen people failing to get their vote, but are trying to solve that problem by causing thousands of people to not be able to vote.
Why on earth would an ID be required? It's a needless extra complication for no good reason. You send out the voting cards to all registered voters, they show up at the polls, you score them off the list as they receive their ballot. Done. Everyone is identified, no one needs to get expensive, or complex to get ID cards.
IDs don't make voting any more secure, they only make it harder to vote.
The sweet spot is well known - it's around 50-60. That's why insurance companies offer people in that age bracket the lowest rates - they have the fewest accidents.
It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account.
That's not a loophole - that's just straight up illegal. As I said - it's an opt-in. Companies operating in the EU are not allowed to collect data on people without their consent.
The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.
Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.
Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.
That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.
You should probably try reading again.
LEO is between 84 and 120 miles. Plus, your calculation was incorrect the correct result is between 1ms and 1.5ms of latency added. However, the communication between the sats in space will be at the speed of light in a vacuum, rather than the speed of electrical signalling in copper, or the speed of light in glass. Meaning that in the copper case, as soon as you're trying to transmit a signal 50 miles, space is the faster router. In the case of fibre connections, as soon as you're trying to transmit more than 400 miles, space is faster.
In practice, that means for 99% of communications on the internet, LEO is lower latency than ground based communication.
Yes, but those 3 geostationary sats would have enormous issues with capacity and latency.
Once you get over 50 miles from the destination host going via the satellite would be faster even if you assumed no switching systems in between.
On the ground - 50 miles of electrical signal in copper = 1.25ms
Via space - 84 miles up, 84 miles down, 51 miles through space = 1.25ms
Even if you assume glass fibre all the way, it's still faster by LEO for any time the distance exceeds 400 miles.
No it's not - the round trip to low earth orbit at the speed of light is less than 1ms, and the fact that signals travel in a vacuum between sats (rather than in glass or copper along the ground) means that at any distance between end points over 400 miles, latency is LOWER via LEO than via ground signalling systems.
You're thinking of geosynchronous based systems.
No they won't. The reason that current satelite internet connections have high latency is because they're in geosynchronous orbit, 36,000 miles away. LEO (where musk is intending to put his network) is substantially closer (84 miles). Sending a signal by radio only 168 miles extra has a neglidgable (less than 1 ms) impact on latency. In fact, given that signals between the sats will be light travelling in a (near) vacuum) they may actually get there faster than ones travelling in glass along the ground (depending on the total distances involved).
Thankfully, electric motors powered 100% by coal power plants still produce far less CO2 than diesel engines on board ship.
Right - so again, the solution is increased regulation. Introduce a constitutional amendment that stops bribery being considered free speech and stops it being legal.
What makes you think it's *deregulation* that will lower the barriers to entry?
The thing actually that will lower the barrier to entry is regulation to stop the current players using their current scummy tactics to keep the competition out.
Except that the eGolf is actually $28500, because of the federal rebate.
Also, KBB says a 3 year old Golf with 36000 miles on it is worth $9900, but a 3 year old eGolf with 36000 miles on it is worth $14200, so your resale values are deffinately off - the eGolf will be worth more (3 years was used here because that's the oldest eGolf available).
Here's the purchase version of it over 3 years:
Golf - $24k
12000 miles/year @$2.60 per gallon and 30mpg = $3120
Service costs - $300/yr = $900
Sold for $9900
TCoO = $6040/year
eGolf - $28.5k
12000 miles/year @ 4m/kWh and $0.11/kWh = $990
Car sold for $14.2k
TCoO = $5096/year
Uhhh... LiIon hasn't improved significantly since the 1990s? What the hell are you talking about man?
In 1990 a LiIon battery could store around 75Wh/kg, today a LiIon battery can store around 260Wh/kg... Further to that, the price has dropped by about 5 fold in the last 5 years alone.
The problem is that as soon as one vehicle stops, all vehicles must stop behind it, or slowly traverse complex points systems. That's not a requirement here.
But with the benefit that a subway moves at 30mph, and stops for 50% of the time, while this moves at 150mph and stops 5% of the time.
What makes you think that viewing content provided by Verizon over their TV feeds is the only use for HDMI?
Range isn't traded off at all. These things have a 500 mile range. That's 8 hours continuous driving at a trucker's maximum speed. They've already published that they'll be able to charge to 400 miles range in 30 minutes from a mega charger. That means you can get to 180 miles in only 10 minutes.
180 miles is another 3 hours of driving. That's your trucker's 11 hours maximum driving time covered with only 10 minutes spent charging.
That means these are completely open to long haul trucking with basically indefinite range, as long as the mega charger network rolls out fine.
They already announced that the TCO is roughly 20% lower than that of a diesel truck when electricity is priced at $0.07 (which is the price they intend to charge at mega charger stations).