I don't have IT experience, but you said "tech workers", so I'm going to chime in.
In my experience, our open positions are filled in three ways: 1. We have an internship/co-op program and hire kids who work out well while on co-op. 2. Poach from other tech firms when they lay off or close down. 3. Advertise the position, sift resumes, interview, and hire.
Most - actually, almost all - of our hires come from #1 or #2. The chances of finding a decent person with method #3 is very, very low. You have a lot of people who, I don't know if they suck at interviews or just suck in general, but not many come through the door that I'd like to work with based on the interview. We get a lot of co-op duds as well, but those just go away in a few months. The good ones are trained cheaply while they are co-ops and then can start right away as full-time engineers... win-win. Another real score is when places like Lockheed or Honeywell close a facility nearby. It isn't that frequent and you feel bad for the employees, but man we get some good talent from them.
My bad, it's "only" $5400 with trade-in (which is a subsidized price for PR reasons). At which point you'd have a 100,000 mile car with a brand new battery. I was thinking of the Tesla battery, which apparently goes for around $12,000.
A Camry and a Leaf are not comparable cars. You would have been looking at something more like a Versa, which would have been under $10,000 used. Making up for the $5000 would have been very difficult.
It is not outrageous to explore ways of capturing energy from the flexing of the tires that also would otherwise be wasted as heat.
You are right, but after 10 minutes of scribbling basic thermodynamic equations down on paper and realizing how little energy is available for recovery, any further effort is outrageous. That Goodyear mentioned this at all would be outrageous, except that there is a demonstrated market for people who care little about the economics of certain car technologies. The system will quite obviously never pay for itself, but perhaps there are people who would pay to save some fraction of a percent of energy for philosophical reasons, or because they are ignorant.
Well, I did mention philosophical reasons. I can't judge people who do things that they like with their own money, but I can judge people who think that they are saving money when the objectively are not.
Diesel electrics would pay three cost penalties: 1. Diesel engine compared to gasoline, 2. Extra complexity of a hybrid drivetrain, 3. Battery or capacitor. Hybrid gasoline engines are already too expensive for most people to recoup costs - add diesel to the mix and the cost is even higher.
When battery costs come down or gas prices go up, electric will be economical. For now, they are interesting and practical - even compelling for certain philosophical reasons - but not economical.
Anyway, buying a hybrid/electric new car is less economical than buying a gasoline (or even diesel) new car, which was in fact my point. There are people who drive a lot of city miles (like a taxi) who can benefit from a hybrid, and there are philosophical reasons to drive an electric - but there are also a large number of people who ignorantly think that they are somehow saving money.
This is just Goodyear seeing that a bunch of people are gullible* enough to buy electric cars and hybrids. This gets them a piece of the action.
* They might not be gullible, but instead they believe that they are doing something for the environment or feel a need to appear so. Or maybe they are tired of their hard-earned dollars flowing towards hostile foreign regimes.
That sounds like yet another barrier to entry for a small outfit looking to compete with larger enterprises. If you are too small to bring everything in-house, you'd be at a government-imposed disadvantage by having to pay taxes on whatever service you require.
It's the difference between sitting in a car and going for a test-drive.
Don't you mean going for an "audition" in the car?
You really don't see why this sounds pretentious? Probably everyone here has test-driven a car. Even a crappy car costs more than the most expensive headphones. Headphones - little speakers that go on your head. You test them. They can only do one thing, so when you say you tested them, it is unambiguous. "Audition" is some marketer's invention, and your use of it can sound either pretentious or it can make you sound gullible. It's definitely not the appropriate word to use if you aren't looking for odd reactions from people uninfluenced by audiophile marketing.
Well, you don't seem like the original poster, but I think you answered my question.
Earbuds: 1. Fit in a pocket 2. Are more than adequate for most pop music produced in the last 75 years. 3. Are more than adequate for most mobile listening environments. 4. Are more than adequate for podcasts. 5. Can passively cancel ambient noise without looking like Princess Leia. 6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable. 7. More amenable to wearing during physical activity. 8. Starting cost is around $1.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that I disagree with you, but look at the post I was replying to.
How did I forget referrals? :)
I don't have IT experience, but you said "tech workers", so I'm going to chime in.
In my experience, our open positions are filled in three ways:
1. We have an internship/co-op program and hire kids who work out well while on co-op.
2. Poach from other tech firms when they lay off or close down.
3. Advertise the position, sift resumes, interview, and hire.
Most - actually, almost all - of our hires come from #1 or #2. The chances of finding a decent person with method #3 is very, very low. You have a lot of people who, I don't know if they suck at interviews or just suck in general, but not many come through the door that I'd like to work with based on the interview. We get a lot of co-op duds as well, but those just go away in a few months. The good ones are trained cheaply while they are co-ops and then can start right away as full-time engineers... win-win. Another real score is when places like Lockheed or Honeywell close a facility nearby. It isn't that frequent and you feel bad for the employees, but man we get some good talent from them.
Yes, taxis, delivery vehicles and the like are obviously going to compress the payback period and my comments are not directed towards them.
My bad, it's "only" $5400 with trade-in (which is a subsidized price for PR reasons). At which point you'd have a 100,000 mile car with a brand new battery. I was thinking of the Tesla battery, which apparently goes for around $12,000.
(By the way, I'm old enough to have driven the EV1... it was quite cool.)
Those are all fine reasons. Saving money is not.
A Camry and a Leaf are not comparable cars. You would have been looking at something more like a Versa, which would have been under $10,000 used. Making up for the $5000 would have been very difficult.
Not if you have to replace a battery pack that costs more than a new (gasoline) car.
It is not outrageous to explore ways of capturing energy from the flexing of the tires that also would otherwise be wasted as heat.
You are right, but after 10 minutes of scribbling basic thermodynamic equations down on paper and realizing how little energy is available for recovery, any further effort is outrageous. That Goodyear mentioned this at all would be outrageous, except that there is a demonstrated market for people who care little about the economics of certain car technologies. The system will quite obviously never pay for itself, but perhaps there are people who would pay to save some fraction of a percent of energy for philosophical reasons, or because they are ignorant.
Well, I did mention philosophical reasons. I can't judge people who do things that they like with their own money, but I can judge people who think that they are saving money when the objectively are not.
Diesel electrics would pay three cost penalties: 1. Diesel engine compared to gasoline, 2. Extra complexity of a hybrid drivetrain, 3. Battery or capacitor. Hybrid gasoline engines are already too expensive for most people to recoup costs - add diesel to the mix and the cost is even higher.
When battery costs come down or gas prices go up, electric will be economical. For now, they are interesting and practical - even compelling for certain philosophical reasons - but not economical.
You are more likely to get less than 3 extra miles, if that.
New car? Who said anything about a new car?
Anyway, buying a hybrid/electric new car is less economical than buying a gasoline (or even diesel) new car, which was in fact my point. There are people who drive a lot of city miles (like a taxi) who can benefit from a hybrid, and there are philosophical reasons to drive an electric - but there are also a large number of people who ignorantly think that they are somehow saving money.
They only need to convince people who already made the very uneconomical decision to buy an electric or hybrid.
This is just Goodyear seeing that a bunch of people are gullible* enough to buy electric cars and hybrids. This gets them a piece of the action.
* They might not be gullible, but instead they believe that they are doing something for the environment or feel a need to appear so. Or maybe they are tired of their hard-earned dollars flowing towards hostile foreign regimes.
That sounds like yet another barrier to entry for a small outfit looking to compete with larger enterprises. If you are too small to bring everything in-house, you'd be at a government-imposed disadvantage by having to pay taxes on whatever service you require.
It's the difference between sitting in a car and going for a test-drive.
Don't you mean going for an "audition" in the car?
You really don't see why this sounds pretentious? Probably everyone here has test-driven a car. Even a crappy car costs more than the most expensive headphones. Headphones - little speakers that go on your head. You test them. They can only do one thing, so when you say you tested them, it is unambiguous. "Audition" is some marketer's invention, and your use of it can sound either pretentious or it can make you sound gullible. It's definitely not the appropriate word to use if you aren't looking for odd reactions from people uninfluenced by audiophile marketing.
Are you on the right site?
This is where image support would make this place so awesome:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dZqAEV0...
But I had three more points! Oh, drat.
It's a direct rip from Dr. Seuss's "The ABC Book", so I'm not authorized to change it :)
I shouldn't need to expand upon point 6, but you seem to need it:
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable. Or, might not.
I hope that was helpful. This message brought to you by the letter "A".
This is how audiophiles talk. If you have one as a friend, it is best for everyone if you simply never talk about music.
Well, you don't seem like the original poster, but I think you answered my question.
Earbuds:
1. Fit in a pocket
2. Are more than adequate for most pop music produced in the last 75 years.
3. Are more than adequate for most mobile listening environments.
4. Are more than adequate for podcasts.
5. Can passively cancel ambient noise without looking like Princess Leia.
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable.
7. More amenable to wearing during physical activity.
8. Starting cost is around $1.
But yes, they completely suck for all purposes.
A lot of people? Is this a "who has a TV, anyway" kind of question meant to sound superior or a serious question?