No, but the company simply adjusts salaries and compensations according to how much they have to pay.
No they don't. There's isn't a choice here. Whatever is paid to the employee is taxed as income. Employers pay employees what they need to pay to keep the ones they want. Board members pay themselves as much as they can get away with. In neither case is the amount decided based on what corporation tax the company is or isn't paying.
It doesn't matter whether it's "the same money"; one pound is one pound to the UK government, regardless of who wrote the check.
It matters who pays it, and it matters how much they pay. This idea that if the corporation don't pay, the employees do, and thats equivalent, is moronic.
The batteries will not in fact last as long as the gas engine will in a normal car.
You're wrong, as Prius batteries already do.
The replacement of that battery is not a green event.
You mean the RECONDITIONING or RECYCLING. And yes, they ARE green activities. Just as reconditioning an ICE engine rather than throwing it away would be.
If by "here we are", you mean at the stage where writers are writing articles about a supposed problem, then yes. But what's new. Whether it's a significant problem in the real world, is another matter. It's the first I've heard anyone complain about it. If you search for it on Google, like any other thing, you'll find examples. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a general problem.
Worse, I saw a Tesla parked at the airport the other day, in a charging spot, not charging.
Some people park badly in every sort of car. Is there a parking restriction that EVs that aren't charging shouldn't park there? If so, it should be ticketed. If not, an airport needs to be sure they have LOTS of charging points. Were all the other's busy?
The same people who paid for the original ones and had reason to give away the electricity.
But my point is not that chargers should be always and forever free. It's that certain people are so keen to use fees to limit demand, rather than expand supply. Not because that's the best way forward, but because they like to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
No, there is in fact no difference who pays the tax.
Employee and company are not the same "person".
True, the rates are different: by giving out this money in bonuses, the UK government ended up with more revenue. That's unfortunate, but kudos to Facebook to still doing it anyway.
Indeed. It's funny how the very same people that a are usually telling us that EVs are a failure, and now telling us that they are so popular there's not enough infrastructure to cope.
I suggest the real problem is that writers need a topic to write about. Whether there's a problem or not, it makes a click-worthy article to describe one.
I doubt there are many people with a daily commute long enough to make much dent in a Tesla's max range. But for all the people that can't afford that, yes, a plug-in hybrid is a particularly good compromise right now. Electric on most short journeys so long as you drive steady. But no chance of running short of power.
People pay large amounts of money for electric cars so they can feel superior to the rest of us average drivers. They are saving the environment and you are destroying it. So They are better than everyone else.
To be fair, that is true. They ARE doing something about the environment that you're not. Of course they shouldn't lord it over people, and I doubt whether many do in reality. It's probably more paranoia or guilt on your part.
As well as the fact that they aren't giving all their profits away as bonuses, there's also the fact that expecting employees to pay the tax rather than the company paying it is a very different thing indeed. Even *if* the government would get the same either way. Which they wouldn't as rates and allowances vary.
Seems to me here's an example where Free Software actually DOES make sense. Why have every city creating their own apps and issue tracking systems. Or having companies taking public money to provide them. Isn't this a perfect area for the public to create their own system that any public body in the word can just adopt free of charge.
This would be actually serving the community. The REAL community, not just a small group of geeks with a particular interest.
Many people would rather use an app than ring a cab company. And a cab company phone call is a lot quicker and more efficient than ringing the city/council about some arbitrary problem.
This is very different from reporting software defects.
If there's a pothole, all you really need is a photo of the pothole, and the GPS coordinates. Selecting a category of "pot hole" or "roads" would be useful.
It doesn't need software version, OS version, steps to reproduce, test data etc. that you may need on a software defect.
Apple have had more experience than most doing processor transitions. 68000 -> PowerPC -> X86.
The same transition techniques of fat binaries (or fat app bundles) and emulation can still apply.
But this time they have another tool in their armoury. The Mac App Store. It means that when the user buys an ARM Mac, provided developers have compiled a new version, they'll simply install all their Mac App Store bought software in one go, ready to go as ARM native.
It'd have to be a very, very good reason to go through another transition though.
But the fanboys keep telling us that all the human drivers will be gone in five years because Google.
No they don't. That's shorter than the normal life of the cars already on the road.
They may well say that autonomous cars will be in consumers hands within 5 years. And they may well be right.
As to whether the fully autonomous approach or the gradually add more automation to existing cars approach is better, we'll find out. American companies are generally trying the former. European companies the latter. Results, not theoretical arguments will provide the winner.
Why would I want a 'driverless car' if I can't sit in the back drinking whiskey because the car might expect me to take over at any second? What's the point?
What's the point of automatic transmission? Cruise control? Automatic braking before collision? They are all steps on the way to partially automated cars. And they are increasingly popular. And at the top end automatic lane following is already available to the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but the company simply adjusts salaries and compensations according to how much they have to pay.
No they don't. There's isn't a choice here. Whatever is paid to the employee is taxed as income. Employers pay employees what they need to pay to keep the ones they want. Board members pay themselves as much as they can get away with. In neither case is the amount decided based on what corporation tax the company is or isn't paying.
It doesn't matter whether it's "the same money"; one pound is one pound to the UK government, regardless of who wrote the check.
It matters who pays it, and it matters how much they pay. This idea that if the corporation don't pay, the employees do, and thats equivalent, is moronic.
The batteries will not in fact last as long as the gas engine will in a normal car.
You're wrong, as Prius batteries already do.
The replacement of that battery is not a green event.
You mean the RECONDITIONING or RECYCLING. And yes, they ARE green activities. Just as reconditioning an ICE engine rather than throwing it away would be.
If by "here we are", you mean at the stage where writers are writing articles about a supposed problem, then yes. But what's new. Whether it's a significant problem in the real world, is another matter. It's the first I've heard anyone complain about it. If you search for it on Google, like any other thing, you'll find examples. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a general problem.
Worse, I saw a Tesla parked at the airport the other day, in a charging spot, not charging.
Some people park badly in every sort of car. Is there a parking restriction that EVs that aren't charging shouldn't park there? If so, it should be ticketed. If not, an airport needs to be sure they have LOTS of charging points. Were all the other's busy?
The same people who paid for the original ones and had reason to give away the electricity.
But my point is not that chargers should be always and forever free. It's that certain people are so keen to use fees to limit demand, rather than expand supply. Not because that's the best way forward, but because they like to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
No, there is in fact no difference who pays the tax.
Employee and company are not the same "person".
True, the rates are different: by giving out this money in bonuses, the UK government ended up with more revenue. That's unfortunate, but kudos to Facebook to still doing it anyway.
It's not the same money, you stupid cunt.
So far, none have.
Then you're blind as well as stupid.
I'm "shilling" for free markets and liberty
As I say, an idiot.
I'm not convinced EVs are that much cleaner than gas cars. They might be, a bit, but not as much as is claimed.
Well since you don't even know how long the batteries last, it's no surprise you're not convinced.
I'm afraid the ICE guy who parks in the charging spot is the person who started the assholishness.
Apparently there are tricks to get around the lock.
Indeed. It's funny how the very same people that a are usually telling us that EVs are a failure, and now telling us that they are so popular there's not enough infrastructure to cope.
I suggest the real problem is that writers need a topic to write about. Whether there's a problem or not, it makes a click-worthy article to describe one.
But the sensible solution would be to wire up more of the parking sports for electricity.
Neo-liberals. Always so quick to think the market is the solution for everything.
I doubt there are many people with a daily commute long enough to make much dent in a Tesla's max range. But for all the people that can't afford that, yes, a plug-in hybrid is a particularly good compromise right now. Electric on most short journeys so long as you drive steady. But no chance of running short of power.
How do you know? Have you done a survey?
Exceptions don't prove a rule.
The cost of the electricity is also so low, it's less than the good will that's generated by giving it away.
If you're a 10 year old.
People pay large amounts of money for electric cars so they can feel superior to the rest of us average drivers. They are saving the environment and you are destroying it. So They are better than everyone else.
To be fair, that is true. They ARE doing something about the environment that you're not. Of course they shouldn't lord it over people, and I doubt whether many do in reality. It's probably more paranoia or guilt on your part.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How many more people have to explain to you. Why are you shilling for Facebook?
As well as the fact that they aren't giving all their profits away as bonuses, there's also the fact that expecting employees to pay the tax rather than the company paying it is a very different thing indeed. Even *if* the government would get the same either way. Which they wouldn't as rates and allowances vary.
Seems to me here's an example where Free Software actually DOES make sense. Why have every city creating their own apps and issue tracking systems. Or having companies taking public money to provide them. Isn't this a perfect area for the public to create their own system that any public body in the word can just adopt free of charge.
This would be actually serving the community. The REAL community, not just a small group of geeks with a particular interest.
Many people would rather use an app than ring a cab company. And a cab company phone call is a lot quicker and more efficient than ringing the city/council about some arbitrary problem.
This is very different from reporting software defects.
If there's a pothole, all you really need is a photo of the pothole, and the GPS coordinates. Selecting a category of "pot hole" or "roads" would be useful.
It doesn't need software version, OS version, steps to reproduce, test data etc. that you may need on a software defect.
Neither does the lack of salary...
Apple have had more experience than most doing processor transitions. 68000 -> PowerPC -> X86.
The same transition techniques of fat binaries (or fat app bundles) and emulation can still apply.
But this time they have another tool in their armoury. The Mac App Store. It means that when the user buys an ARM Mac, provided developers have compiled a new version, they'll simply install all their Mac App Store bought software in one go, ready to go as ARM native.
It'd have to be a very, very good reason to go through another transition though.
But the fanboys keep telling us that all the human drivers will be gone in five years because Google.
No they don't. That's shorter than the normal life of the cars already on the road.
They may well say that autonomous cars will be in consumers hands within 5 years. And they may well be right.
As to whether the fully autonomous approach or the gradually add more automation to existing cars approach is better, we'll find out. American companies are generally trying the former. European companies the latter. Results, not theoretical arguments will provide the winner.
Why would I want a 'driverless car' if I can't sit in the back drinking whiskey because the car might expect me to take over at any second? What's the point?
What's the point of automatic transmission? Cruise control? Automatic braking before collision? They are all steps on the way to partially automated cars. And they are increasingly popular. And at the top end automatic lane following is already available to the consumer.