Pretty much everyone who's tried a Tesla Model S prefers it to gas powered cars. That's why marques such as Ferrari and BMW are at the very least having to produce hybrids, if not EVs themselves. A few more years and a gas-powerd car will seem as attractive as monochrome TV.
Where are you getting 75 miles from? The world's best selling EV is the Tesla Model S with about 250 miles range. The second is the very affordable Nissan Leaf which comes with 84 mile and 107 mile versions.
The Nissan Leaf with 75 miles range was the 2013 model. Each year EVs get better - even the existing models.
Naysaying EVs is like the people saying the iPod wouldn't catch on. It's inevitable. And the only thing that can stop it is some even better technology. The one thing that won't happen is staying with the old technology, whether it's CDs or gas powered cars.
Technology always starts out expensive, and gradually comes down in price with innovations, improved yield and scale. And as it comes down in price, more people get on-board. Tesla demonstrates that perfectly as the cost of subsequent models has reduced.
There is no magic threshold of specs above which EVs will "take off". They are already taking off. The pace will just increase as they get better value.
As to the watch, it's sold more than the iPhone did in it's first year. And significantly more than Rolex does ANY year. Presumably you don't think Rolex is a failure.
And why the fuck do you think you know they don't have any big ideas on the horizon when they don't announce products till they are ready to demonstrate, and are within days or at most 6 months for shipping.
Apple computers and devices consistently come at the top of customer satisfaction surveys. Their popularity is not status or form, it's because they have better UX. For sure you pay extra for that, and I understand that some people can't or don't want to pay for that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you are not missing something.
Hydroelectric dams make great batteries on the grid for balancing out demand for energy generated in big power stations. But this is for an entirely different purpose. This is for balancing domestic and commercial micro-generation with solar panels and wind turbines. Except in very exceptional circumstances, you can't use hydro for that.
So your theory is that id governments do more than roads and military, "things go bad", yet when you are faced with the countries with the happiest people doing vastly more than that, you think it's just coincidence. A hundred years, or whatever it's been is apparently isn't enough for your "it goes bad" to kick in.
You deny the facts where they contradict your ideology. You might want to try some history and philosophy yourself. Clearly that's not where you have got your stupid and unsupportable opinions from.
Given that I am English it's certainly my native language.
Now, what's so special about roads and military? Why should they be collectivised and not police, fire brigade, education and health?
"Over" seems to be your particular extremist priorities and not any kind of arguable threshold.
The idea that if government controls more than roads and military, "things go bad" is complete nonsense, that isn't demonstrated by the real world. Amongst the happiest nations in the world are the Scandinavian countries that have relatively high taxation, and socialise huge amounts of social services.
Steve Jobs CREATED massive wealth for himself and others through his vision. Without him the whole World would be poorer.
Not at all. Every dollar Apple made from selling an iPhone came out of the pocket of the person buying one. It's not creating wealth it's just transacting it. That is not how wealth is made.
ps. I've never read Ayn Rand.
Then your ideas are 3rd hand. What you think is "actual economics" is just objectivism. A set of ideas that come from Ayn Rand. If you're going to repeat them, you should at least read the primary source.
That means any additional efforts that would benefit society will be taxed at 50%.
The tax benefits society too. Win win.
As to the Laffer curve is a long standing theory that has never been shown to be true. Doubt it? Then tell me what percentage the supposed maximum tax take is at. After all if the Laffer curve was true, it would have been found by now and every country would be using it.
You don't have a clue about economics. Greece's problem is that capitalism requires constant growth or it dies. And wealth consists of debt. Literally. Most money is created by banks making loans. What you think is wealth creation is simply more people and organisations in debt. In the years leading up to 2008, Greece, both government and businesses, were encouraged to take on massive amounts of debt. Far more than could be paid off even if the global financial system hadn't crashed.
You're clearly a fan of Ayn Rand. A writer of pulp fiction who lived on welfare. Idiot ideas for selfish people who need to feel good about themselves.
Take a wild-assed guess what the yearly income of someone at the proposed $15/hr minimum wage: that's right, $30,000/year That's why I specifically chose $15/hr.
So because you are confused and don't know the difference between the completely different concepts of Basic Income and Minimum wage.
If you're a hard-working working class person, you can't afford to save half your income. And even if you did, after 20 years you wouldn't get enough income from it to survive without eating into the capital.
As to the child of the rich person, it's not simply example and lesson, it's having the fees for a good private school and college paid. Where they develop a network with other privileged kids, and gain the right accent. With the result that they walk into a very good job at the end of it because of who they know. A job that simply isn't available to a poor person - no matter how hard they work.
I'm afraid you've been sold the American Dream. And it's bullshit.
Clearly you didn't. Dickens was one of the most important social commentators at a time when welfare came with the idea of punishing it's recipients. e.g. The Workhouse.
It also means people will be happy to leech off others knowing they will be guaranteed this income. There is no incentive to do anything other than the minimum because they'll still get paid.
You mean if you were given welfare level payments you wouldn't bother working? Fuck me. Well maybe you're lazy. But don't judge others by your standards.
Why bother inventing something when you'll still get paid for not inventing?
Take a look at Musk, or Jobs, or Gates. They very quickly got to the stage where there wealth meant they never had to work another day in their lives. But they carried on inventing (or at least actively running teams that did the inventing). Jobs now works hard to spend his money trying to rid the world of malaria amongst other things.
At the other end of the scale you have artists, musician, actors. They know that they'll never earn more than a tiny income. But they keep on creating anyway. Encouraging artists is one of the many good things of the UBI idea.
Your idea that people only do something because they are threatened with destitution, is such a bleak and sad idea. I'm glad I don't share your world view.
The very silly Protestant work ethic created this country, and all the prosperity
Tell that to the indigenous people that were in the country before you invaded it, and killed most of them.
Supply and Demand: passing out lots of money out to everyone (IOW, increasing the supply of money) does nothing but increase the cost of goods.
It's not about increasing the money supply, but increasing the speed of money. Rich people lock money away. Poor people spend it. That's good for the economy.
Also, if the government gives me $30,000/year but I have to work at some boring, back breaking job 40 hours/week to make $32,000/year then why the hell shouldn't I just sit home and play video games?
You ought to read about UBI before you spout mindless drivel. But of course you won't because you prefer your ignorance.
1) The clue is on the name: BASIC. It's not $30,000 2) What kind of moron thinks that a full time job would only earn $2,000. Before or after UBI. In actual fact if there are less workers after UBI, then salaries will be higher, nor ridiculously lower.
Slashdot Mirror
What are facts when you're a true believer?
Pretty much everyone who's tried a Tesla Model S prefers it to gas powered cars. That's why marques such as Ferrari and BMW are at the very least having to produce hybrids, if not EVs themselves. A few more years and a gas-powerd car will seem as attractive as monochrome TV.
Where are you getting 75 miles from? The world's best selling EV is the Tesla Model S with about 250 miles range. The second is the very affordable Nissan Leaf which comes with 84 mile and 107 mile versions.
The Nissan Leaf with 75 miles range was the 2013 model. Each year EVs get better - even the existing models.
Naysaying EVs is like the people saying the iPod wouldn't catch on. It's inevitable. And the only thing that can stop it is some even better technology. The one thing that won't happen is staying with the old technology, whether it's CDs or gas powered cars.
Technology always starts out expensive, and gradually comes down in price with innovations, improved yield and scale. And as it comes down in price, more people get on-board. Tesla demonstrates that perfectly as the cost of subsequent models has reduced.
There is no magic threshold of specs above which EVs will "take off". They are already taking off. The pace will just increase as they get better value.
What a desperate argument.
What's not big about doing cars?
As to the watch, it's sold more than the iPhone did in it's first year. And significantly more than Rolex does ANY year. Presumably you don't think Rolex is a failure.
And why the fuck do you think you know they don't have any big ideas on the horizon when they don't announce products till they are ready to demonstrate, and are within days or at most 6 months for shipping.
Apple computers and devices consistently come at the top of customer satisfaction surveys. Their popularity is not status or form, it's because they have better UX. For sure you pay extra for that, and I understand that some people can't or don't want to pay for that. But you're kidding yourself if you think you are not missing something.
Demand outstripping supply presumably.
Hydroelectric dams make great batteries on the grid for balancing out demand for energy generated in big power stations. But this is for an entirely different purpose. This is for balancing domestic and commercial micro-generation with solar panels and wind turbines. Except in very exceptional circumstances, you can't use hydro for that.
You stated it was unrelated to government. i.e. Just coincidence.
It's all right, you can admit you're wrong.
So your theory is that id governments do more than roads and military, "things go bad", yet when you are faced with the countries with the happiest people doing vastly more than that, you think it's just coincidence. A hundred years, or whatever it's been is apparently isn't enough for your "it goes bad" to kick in.
You deny the facts where they contradict your ideology. You might want to try some history and philosophy yourself. Clearly that's not where you have got your stupid and unsupportable opinions from.
Sounds like a good reason to vote for Bernie.
Given that I am English it's certainly my native language.
Now, what's so special about roads and military? Why should they be collectivised and not police, fire brigade, education and health?
"Over" seems to be your particular extremist priorities and not any kind of arguable threshold.
The idea that if government controls more than roads and military, "things go bad" is complete nonsense, that isn't demonstrated by the real world. Amongst the happiest nations in the world are the Scandinavian countries that have relatively high taxation, and socialise huge amounts of social services.
Steve Jobs CREATED massive wealth for himself and others through his vision. Without him the whole World would be poorer.
Not at all. Every dollar Apple made from selling an iPhone came out of the pocket of the person buying one. It's not creating wealth it's just transacting it. That is not how wealth is made.
ps. I've never read Ayn Rand.
Then your ideas are 3rd hand. What you think is "actual economics" is just objectivism. A set of ideas that come from Ayn Rand. If you're going to repeat them, you should at least read the primary source.
Nah, I am very well versed in following conversations
Unsurprising you don't realise you're an idiot. Stupid people never do.
That means any additional efforts that would benefit society will be taxed at 50%.
The tax benefits society too. Win win.
As to the Laffer curve is a long standing theory that has never been shown to be true. Doubt it? Then tell me what percentage the supposed maximum tax take is at. After all if the Laffer curve was true, it would have been found by now and every country would be using it.
roman_mir, you are know to be the biggest bufoon on Slashdot. You're fooling no one.
I didn't say anything about their opinions on tax or the building of roads or military, You can't even follow a fucking thread.
You don't have a clue about economics. Greece's problem is that capitalism requires constant growth or it dies. And wealth consists of debt. Literally. Most money is created by banks making loans. What you think is wealth creation is simply more people and organisations in debt. In the years leading up to 2008, Greece, both government and businesses, were encouraged to take on massive amounts of debt. Far more than could be paid off even if the global financial system hadn't crashed.
You're clearly a fan of Ayn Rand. A writer of pulp fiction who lived on welfare. Idiot ideas for selfish people who need to feel good about themselves.
Reading Islamaphobic web sites is not the same thing as "reading the books".
People thrive when government does little, as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington told us.
If they did, they were idiots.
When government handles roads and military defense, society thrives; when government bleeds people by taxation and regulation
How the hell do you imagine the government handles roads and military defence other than by taxation and regulation?
Take a wild-assed guess what the yearly income of someone at the proposed $15/hr minimum wage: that's right, $30,000/year
That's why I specifically chose $15/hr.
So because you are confused and don't know the difference between the completely different concepts of Basic Income and Minimum wage.
If you're a hard-working working class person, you can't afford to save half your income. And even if you did, after 20 years you wouldn't get enough income from it to survive without eating into the capital.
As to the child of the rich person, it's not simply example and lesson, it's having the fees for a good private school and college paid. Where they develop a network with other privileged kids, and gain the right accent. With the result that they walk into a very good job at the end of it because of who they know. A job that simply isn't available to a poor person - no matter how hard they work.
I'm afraid you've been sold the American Dream. And it's bullshit.
Neo-liberal. They're right wing, Thatcherite, Reganite Tories, numb-nuts.
"Did you never read any Dickens?"
That's who you're using to state your case?
Clearly you didn't. Dickens was one of the most important social commentators at a time when welfare came with the idea of punishing it's recipients. e.g. The Workhouse.
It also means people will be happy to leech off others knowing they will be guaranteed this income. There is no incentive to do anything other than the minimum because they'll still get paid.
You mean if you were given welfare level payments you wouldn't bother working? Fuck me. Well maybe you're lazy. But don't judge others by your standards.
Why bother inventing something when you'll still get paid for not inventing?
Take a look at Musk, or Jobs, or Gates. They very quickly got to the stage where there wealth meant they never had to work another day in their lives. But they carried on inventing (or at least actively running teams that did the inventing). Jobs now works hard to spend his money trying to rid the world of malaria amongst other things.
At the other end of the scale you have artists, musician, actors. They know that they'll never earn more than a tiny income. But they keep on creating anyway. Encouraging artists is one of the many good things of the UBI idea.
Your idea that people only do something because they are threatened with destitution, is such a bleak and sad idea. I'm glad I don't share your world view.
The very silly Protestant work ethic created this country, and all the prosperity
Tell that to the indigenous people that were in the country before you invaded it, and killed most of them.
Supply and Demand: passing out lots of money out to everyone (IOW, increasing the supply of money) does nothing but increase the cost of goods.
It's not about increasing the money supply, but increasing the speed of money. Rich people lock money away. Poor people spend it. That's good for the economy.
Also, if the government gives me $30,000/year but I have to work at some boring, back breaking job 40 hours/week to make $32,000/year then why the hell shouldn't I just sit home and play video games?
You ought to read about UBI before you spout mindless drivel. But of course you won't because you prefer your ignorance.
1) The clue is on the name: BASIC. It's not $30,000
2) What kind of moron thinks that a full time job would only earn $2,000. Before or after UBI. In actual fact if there are less workers after UBI, then salaries will be higher, nor ridiculously lower.