It's not a dumb idea, nor is it particularly bright (in the literal sense;) ).
The path isn't comprised of a bunch of LEDs, it's basically coated with a durable glow-in-the-dark paint. That's a low-intensity light that won't be blinding by any stretch, and is actually a pretty good idea. As someone who actually rides at night (I commute ~2,500 miles/year on my bike), I'd welcome something like this as it'd be just bright enough to expose things, like branches or people walking in dark clothing, in the path before you're right up on them. Moreover, I'd welcome this over using street lamps to light the paths I take that are currently unlit, since, as I mentioned, this would entail more of a dull glow than a harsh light.
Also, your solution is to use the moon? I take it that there's always a full moon and clear skies where you are?
This is basically a durable glow-in-the-dark paint, not a bunch of LEDs. If you look at that first photo from the article (where the path appears to glow somewhat brightly), you'll noticed that it was taken with a bit of a long exposure (also why the sunset seems so bright). While I'm sure the paths will be quite visible at night, I hardly think that they'll approach anywhere near the magnitude of LEDs. In other words, I highly doubt that this will have much of an impact on the populace's nighttime response, though it'll probably confuse some insects or something.
Your point really bears repeating. I don't know how people can be so willing to just dismiss what a candidate says they'll do. I mean, saying that all politicians make meaningless campaign statements, though true some of the time, ignores the many, many campaign statements that, once elected, politicians actually follow through on. In fact, the majority of campaign statements made by politicians actually do manifest in some form or another.
Of course, I can already hear the, "Trump isn't a politician," sentiments. Fine. To those to whom that applies, if you prefer to ignore actual campaign statements under the assumption that, really, Trump is a decent guy who'll just do whatever the right thing is (or at least, less wrong than Hillary), I'm sure he'll happily sell you exclusive real estate too.
The human body is something that needs to be discovered
We are explorers in the further regions of experience...
Sorry was just reminded of Pinhead (perhaps not the misinterpretation you anticipated). I agree with the other points you were actually making, though; there's a bit much hubris on display.
How many office workers in a typical corporate setting do you see digging into their computer case?
You're not the customer that matters here because, while I'm sure they'd happily sell you one of their sleek new desktops, you don't represent the corporate-oriented target market.
Umm, the earth is not flat, geocentrism is wrong, and spacetime is not always flat. All of these (that last one representing Newtonian gravity, by the way) were considered basic natural laws at some point until they were shown to merely approximate reality.
Now, you can argue for the validity of using those approximations in specific circumstances, but the fact remains that those are now known to be approximations, not laws. If, for example, you're going from one house to another in your neighborhood, a flat-earth approximation makes sense. If, however, you're building a suspension bridge to span a couple kilometers, you need to know that the earth is actually curved.
When you go from the flat-earth, to spherical (ish) earth realization, that's a discovery, just as the GP pointed out. That discovery can only come at the expense of the prior "law," though, which must necessarily be broken.
Wow dude, calm down before you have a paranoia-induced aneurysm or something. I'm my own account and, if anything, his would be a sock-puppet of my account, based on user IDs.
admit his defeat before looking dumb yourself
Your willingness to demand correctness on pain of ad-hominem pretty much sums up why you look so very, very wrong.
Don't know why this was down-modded: The point is a valid one... pretty much every innovation central to modern life (and life expectancy) started out as a convenience, and dismissing something that doctors apparently rely on as merely convenient seems pretty asinine.
That math should really be something more like $2.2M / number of years tax incentive was in place (since that's how the $14.5B was derived). From what I've read, this was in place since the mid-80s, so that should be $2.2M / 30. So, really, that'd be ~$73K per employee, which seems a lot less unreasonable.
Really? Seems to mostly be populated by the "make them pay their fair share" types; not that there's anything wrong with demanding a fair share be paid. That said, it does seem a little ridiculous to effectively say, "Oh hey, you know that thing you were doing for the past 30 years in full public view? Yeah, well, we suddenly decided that we're interested in that, and we'd like a cut for all those years we didn't express an interest."
It's one thing to demand a fair share forthwith, but another thing entirely to allow an protracted exception, then decide that that exception wasn't really allowed after all. It's entirely reasonable to push back a little in that situation.
So your quibble is with the "founded by Apple" claim? Maybe the GP overstated things a bit, but it seems pretty clear that the point they were making (and which you argued against initially) had nothing to do with who was first to enact this tax strategy; their point was that the tax benefits offered by Ireland were instrumental to Apple operating there, and known for a long time. Incidentally, this quote from the article they cited pretty clearly illustrates the point they were making:
"We were the first technology company to establish a manufacturing operation in Ireland," recalled John Sculley, Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993. He said government subsidies had also played a role in deciding to set up a base in Ireland.
In other words, it looks like you shifted the goalposts in an attempt to "win" your argument, except that it's really badly transparent.
I'd suspect that Microsoft probably is not involved, at least not in any remotely direct way.
Microsoft is busy trying to broaden adoption of its Google competitor products, such as Edge and Bing, and it really does not need the PR headache that would ensue if it was tied to this pretty seedy anti-Google group. I mean, Microsoft still has its past anti-competitiveness practices hanging over its head, and the broader public still regards Microsoft with a tinge of cynical skepticism. Were Microsoft to involve itself with Oracle's dirt-digging operation, and that involvement was known, it'd probably do a lot to bolster anti-Microsoft sentiments, and further hinder Microsoft adoption where alternatives (especially Google's) exist. So, yeah, it'd probably be best if Microsoft steers well clear of this thing, and I'm sure they know that.
That said, Microsoft definitely has an interest in Oracle finding success here, so they'll probably find some means of supporting this group, but very indirectly. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of non-binding winking and nudging to get some of Microsoft's business partners on board.
This isn't asking you to prove a negative; this is asking you to support your reasons for presuming a practice, other than just assuming it because it aligns with your argument. By the way, I'm not making some unfalsifiable claim on hiring at Facebook: all you need to do is point to the hiring policies of Facebook that are provided to the hiring managers. If there's no mention of any incentive to hire URMs, then you can claim what you did; if, however, there are incentives outlined (as I suspect there would be based on prior dealings with other tech companies), then you're just spreading a falsehood. Moreover, that potential falsehood seems to be pretty central to a lot of other arguments that you're making, so it's kind of a problem if it turns out to actually be false.
Now, neither you nor I have access to that information. The difference between us is that I'm not claiming something with certainty, but you appear to be. I said that I suspect there are hiring policies that favor URMs at Facebook (and have good reason to make that claim), but I don't know for sure. You said that there aren't hiring policies to favor URMs. Period. Now you've gone on -- in a pretty intellectually dishonest manner -- to dismiss my challenge to your claimed knowledge, which you still haven't addressed, as some sort of ridiculous demand.
Please point to the actual quote from the article that says what you said. What I see is the following:
Recruiters bring in candidates, but it is up to hiring managers to make job offers. Therefore, attracting more candidates doesn’t necessarily result in a more diverse workforce.
That doesn't imply that hiring managers don't also receive similar incentives for hiring URMs; it just indicates that hiring managers are under no obligation to hire according to the proportions recruiters supply to them. Now, the Gizmodo article said what you said, but it's clear that that's a supposition on the part of that article's author. In short, they're just assuming, as you did, that hiring managers have no incentive to hire URMs. Again, that's not at all in line with what I've actually seen.
The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best
Care to back that up? That runs counter to the, admittedly anecdotal, evidence that I've encountered dealing with HR at the tech companies I've been involved with (ex. IBM). Both you and the Gizmodo article just seem to be asserting that as fact, which may or may not be the case... I don't know either, so I can't just say one way or the other.
Regarding the summary being flamebait, I don't think that it really is: while it has a polemic element to it, it's got that for a reason, as the recruitment practices at Facebook seem to be encountering a brick wall that exists, in no small part, due to erroneous, PC assumptions made on the part of Facebook. It would seem to me that pointing out those assumptions, and how they've failed in this instance, is only flamebait if you have a problem with framing those assumptions as problematic.
They have made some progress due to better recruitment, TFA points that out.
From the WSJ article:
Even so, Facebook has shown little progress. Last month, the company said 4% of its U.S. employees were Hispanic and 2% were black, the same as the two prior years.
What you said doesn't appear to agree with what was in the article. I'll grant that the article mentioned that women hires were up 2% since that time as well, but given the minimal difference for women, and the lack of progress in other URMs, I'm skeptical of the claim that "some progress was made due to better recruitment." Regarding the bump in women hires, I'd suspect that visibility of high-profile women at Facebook (ex. Sandberg) may have had more to do with better availability for recruitment, simply by building interest in the company when many of those women recruited would have been choosing majors, than just recruiter incentives.
At this point, assuming that recruiters did pay attention to the points and associated bonuses tied to URM recruits, how can you claim institutional bias? If URMs were recruited, then they'd have already overcome the graduation hurdle, so poor education and education opportunities wouldn't be an issue for those URM recruits. By the time they were recruited, the only "institutional racism" they'd face would be in terms of hiring managers at Facebook, which, let's face it, does not represent an institution. It seems to me that, if at that point, you're claiming any form of racism as the reason for those recruits not being hired, you must necessarily be claiming individual racism.
By the way, returning to my other point, do you know that there wasn't an incentive to actually hire URMs as well?
I thought that the story was that URMs weren't given enough opportunities for recruitment, or were actively discouraged from seeking open positions. Now that a strong recruitment push favoring URMs has apparently failed, you're saying that didn't matter anyway, since racist hiring managers blocked hiring of URM recruits? What will it be next? Say URM recruits are hired, but, surprise surprise, don't perform as well (since they necessarily cannot represent the best available talent as a group -- obviously individual URMs may represent the best available talent), and are either let go or leave after dealing with a "toxic work environment" (of people who actually care about results). I suppose that'll just represent workplace racism, won't it?
By the way, do you actually know if the point system (or something similar) did or did not extend into hiring manager ranks? It'd make sense -- and would fit with Facebook's MO -- that there would be some bias favoring URMs at that level as well, but the article just speculates that there wasn't. If there was an incentive at that level, maybe hiring managers largely preferred quality over quantity (of URMs).
Nice job making up numbers, but they aren't at all accurate. Rolling and wind resistance isn't negligible, and your generator is going to tack on a lot of drag. Also, do you think that your generator will just drive the electric motor with enough current to allow for hard acceleration or hills (which would also require closely maintained feedback between the motor and generator)? How do you plan to handle that, exactly? The Volt, and other plug-in hybrids, allows it's range extender/generator to drive the transmission directly when it's more efficient to do so; but that won't be an option for your generator add-on.
Moreover, your 10-year battery estimate is way off when the operating battery temperature is actively maintained, and the depletion amount/load is limited, as is done with the Volt (and Teslas, and many other EVs). The Volt in particular is rated (and warrantied) to maintain it's charge capacity for 8-10 years, and, anecdotally, it seems that those claims areaccurate. While there will be some degradation, to be sure, it's not at all in line with the numbers you pulled from your ass. As it turns out, battery degradation has been designed for, and the lithium-ion batteries in most EVs are not simply slapped into place or used like those in your phone or laptop.
Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, engineering teams have already considered the stuff that you're just spit-balling? You know, those design teams that actually rigorously researched -- and tested -- their design as opposed to simply saying, "I'll just make an add-on... that'll work!"
Funny, the range extender works very well for me: Almost all of my driving is taken care of by that paltry 53 (really ~60 with how I drive) miles supported with a full charge. When I'm on a longer trip, and the gasoline engine is used as well, I'm averaging 42 mpg on the gas engine alone. Is that the best of both worlds? No, but it's pretty damn far from the worst. How do you think you'd average hauling around a generic generator?
By the way, if you live 50+ miles from where you work, maybe it's time to re-evaluate where you live/work. You know, changing your own situation rather than expecting everybody else to design for you.
I've basically done that with mine, so, yes... unless you're using large suitcases, and can't be bothered to hold your laptop bag. If that's the case, maybe suck it up a bit, or pack less? If you must have all your stuff, just buy an RV and don't bitch about your gas bill.
The trouble arises where every driver has that one trip a they make that cannot be met by an EV. You end up owning two cars or you get one efficient gasoline vehicle.
There actually are cars that are designed to address exactly that type of usage model, you know. Speaking personally, I went for a Chevy Volt, though there are other options available. As suggested in the article, most of the driving I do is electric-only, but, for longer trips, the gasoline engine is quite handy. By the way, I've taken it into the mountains numerous times (my most recent outing being to Mt. Sherman) and it's actually really nice to be able to recharge the battery a bit on the way back down.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a dumb idea, nor is it particularly bright (in the literal sense ;) ).
The path isn't comprised of a bunch of LEDs, it's basically coated with a durable glow-in-the-dark paint. That's a low-intensity light that won't be blinding by any stretch, and is actually a pretty good idea. As someone who actually rides at night (I commute ~2,500 miles/year on my bike), I'd welcome something like this as it'd be just bright enough to expose things, like branches or people walking in dark clothing, in the path before you're right up on them. Moreover, I'd welcome this over using street lamps to light the paths I take that are currently unlit, since, as I mentioned, this would entail more of a dull glow than a harsh light.
Also, your solution is to use the moon? I take it that there's always a full moon and clear skies where you are?
This is basically a durable glow-in-the-dark paint, not a bunch of LEDs. If you look at that first photo from the article (where the path appears to glow somewhat brightly), you'll noticed that it was taken with a bit of a long exposure (also why the sunset seems so bright). While I'm sure the paths will be quite visible at night, I hardly think that they'll approach anywhere near the magnitude of LEDs. In other words, I highly doubt that this will have much of an impact on the populace's nighttime response, though it'll probably confuse some insects or something.
Your point really bears repeating. I don't know how people can be so willing to just dismiss what a candidate says they'll do. I mean, saying that all politicians make meaningless campaign statements, though true some of the time, ignores the many, many campaign statements that, once elected, politicians actually follow through on. In fact, the majority of campaign statements made by politicians actually do manifest in some form or another.
Of course, I can already hear the, "Trump isn't a politician," sentiments. Fine. To those to whom that applies, if you prefer to ignore actual campaign statements under the assumption that, really, Trump is a decent guy who'll just do whatever the right thing is (or at least, less wrong than Hillary), I'm sure he'll happily sell you exclusive real estate too.
The human body is something that needs to be discovered
We are explorers in the further regions of experience...
Sorry was just reminded of Pinhead (perhaps not the misinterpretation you anticipated). I agree with the other points you were actually making, though; there's a bit much hubris on display.
No wonder they're exploding... they're undoubtedly overflowing with toxic masculinity.
How many office workers in a typical corporate setting do you see digging into their computer case?
You're not the customer that matters here because, while I'm sure they'd happily sell you one of their sleek new desktops, you don't represent the corporate-oriented target market.
Not the target market.
From the article, this is intended for corporate customers; customers who don't need or care about typical desktop modularity.
From the article:
The HP Elite Slice is a corporate-oriented machine
They don't really care if you're interested or not. While I'm sure that they'd be happy to sell you one of these, you're not the target market.
Umm, the earth is not flat, geocentrism is wrong, and spacetime is not always flat. All of these (that last one representing Newtonian gravity, by the way) were considered basic natural laws at some point until they were shown to merely approximate reality.
Now, you can argue for the validity of using those approximations in specific circumstances, but the fact remains that those are now known to be approximations, not laws. If, for example, you're going from one house to another in your neighborhood, a flat-earth approximation makes sense. If, however, you're building a suspension bridge to span a couple kilometers, you need to know that the earth is actually curved.
When you go from the flat-earth, to spherical (ish) earth realization, that's a discovery, just as the GP pointed out. That discovery can only come at the expense of the prior "law," though, which must necessarily be broken.
Wow dude, calm down before you have a paranoia-induced aneurysm or something. I'm my own account and, if anything, his would be a sock-puppet of my account, based on user IDs.
admit his defeat before looking dumb yourself
Your willingness to demand correctness on pain of ad-hominem pretty much sums up why you look so very, very wrong.
Don't know why this was down-modded: The point is a valid one... pretty much every innovation central to modern life (and life expectancy) started out as a convenience, and dismissing something that doctors apparently rely on as merely convenient seems pretty asinine.
That math should really be something more like $2.2M / number of years tax incentive was in place (since that's how the $14.5B was derived). From what I've read, this was in place since the mid-80s, so that should be $2.2M / 30. So, really, that'd be ~$73K per employee, which seems a lot less unreasonable.
Really? Seems to mostly be populated by the "make them pay their fair share" types; not that there's anything wrong with demanding a fair share be paid. That said, it does seem a little ridiculous to effectively say, "Oh hey, you know that thing you were doing for the past 30 years in full public view? Yeah, well, we suddenly decided that we're interested in that, and we'd like a cut for all those years we didn't express an interest."
It's one thing to demand a fair share forthwith, but another thing entirely to allow an protracted exception, then decide that that exception wasn't really allowed after all. It's entirely reasonable to push back a little in that situation.
So your quibble is with the "founded by Apple" claim? Maybe the GP overstated things a bit, but it seems pretty clear that the point they were making (and which you argued against initially) had nothing to do with who was first to enact this tax strategy; their point was that the tax benefits offered by Ireland were instrumental to Apple operating there, and known for a long time. Incidentally, this quote from the article they cited pretty clearly illustrates the point they were making:
"We were the first technology company to establish a manufacturing operation in Ireland," recalled John Sculley, Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993. He said government subsidies had also played a role in deciding to set up a base in Ireland.
In other words, it looks like you shifted the goalposts in an attempt to "win" your argument, except that it's really badly transparent.
I'd suspect that Microsoft probably is not involved, at least not in any remotely direct way.
Microsoft is busy trying to broaden adoption of its Google competitor products, such as Edge and Bing, and it really does not need the PR headache that would ensue if it was tied to this pretty seedy anti-Google group. I mean, Microsoft still has its past anti-competitiveness practices hanging over its head, and the broader public still regards Microsoft with a tinge of cynical skepticism. Were Microsoft to involve itself with Oracle's dirt-digging operation, and that involvement was known, it'd probably do a lot to bolster anti-Microsoft sentiments, and further hinder Microsoft adoption where alternatives (especially Google's) exist. So, yeah, it'd probably be best if Microsoft steers well clear of this thing, and I'm sure they know that.
That said, Microsoft definitely has an interest in Oracle finding success here, so they'll probably find some means of supporting this group, but very indirectly. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of non-binding winking and nudging to get some of Microsoft's business partners on board.
This isn't asking you to prove a negative; this is asking you to support your reasons for presuming a practice, other than just assuming it because it aligns with your argument. By the way, I'm not making some unfalsifiable claim on hiring at Facebook: all you need to do is point to the hiring policies of Facebook that are provided to the hiring managers. If there's no mention of any incentive to hire URMs, then you can claim what you did; if, however, there are incentives outlined (as I suspect there would be based on prior dealings with other tech companies), then you're just spreading a falsehood. Moreover, that potential falsehood seems to be pretty central to a lot of other arguments that you're making, so it's kind of a problem if it turns out to actually be false.
Now, neither you nor I have access to that information. The difference between us is that I'm not claiming something with certainty, but you appear to be. I said that I suspect there are hiring policies that favor URMs at Facebook (and have good reason to make that claim), but I don't know for sure. You said that there aren't hiring policies to favor URMs. Period. Now you've gone on -- in a pretty intellectually dishonest manner -- to dismiss my challenge to your claimed knowledge, which you still haven't addressed, as some sort of ridiculous demand.
Please point to the actual quote from the article that says what you said. What I see is the following:
Recruiters bring in candidates, but it is up to hiring managers to make job offers. Therefore, attracting more candidates doesn’t necessarily result in a more diverse workforce.
That doesn't imply that hiring managers don't also receive similar incentives for hiring URMs; it just indicates that hiring managers are under no obligation to hire according to the proportions recruiters supply to them. Now, the Gizmodo article said what you said, but it's clear that that's a supposition on the part of that article's author. In short, they're just assuming, as you did, that hiring managers have no incentive to hire URMs. Again, that's not at all in line with what I've actually seen.
The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best
Care to back that up? That runs counter to the, admittedly anecdotal, evidence that I've encountered dealing with HR at the tech companies I've been involved with (ex. IBM). Both you and the Gizmodo article just seem to be asserting that as fact, which may or may not be the case... I don't know either, so I can't just say one way or the other.
Regarding the summary being flamebait, I don't think that it really is: while it has a polemic element to it, it's got that for a reason, as the recruitment practices at Facebook seem to be encountering a brick wall that exists, in no small part, due to erroneous, PC assumptions made on the part of Facebook. It would seem to me that pointing out those assumptions, and how they've failed in this instance, is only flamebait if you have a problem with framing those assumptions as problematic.
They have made some progress due to better recruitment, TFA points that out.
From the WSJ article:
Even so, Facebook has shown little progress. Last month, the company said 4% of its U.S. employees were Hispanic and 2% were black, the same as the two prior years.
What you said doesn't appear to agree with what was in the article. I'll grant that the article mentioned that women hires were up 2% since that time as well, but given the minimal difference for women, and the lack of progress in other URMs, I'm skeptical of the claim that "some progress was made due to better recruitment." Regarding the bump in women hires, I'd suspect that visibility of high-profile women at Facebook (ex. Sandberg) may have had more to do with better availability for recruitment, simply by building interest in the company when many of those women recruited would have been choosing majors, than just recruiter incentives.
At this point, assuming that recruiters did pay attention to the points and associated bonuses tied to URM recruits, how can you claim institutional bias? If URMs were recruited, then they'd have already overcome the graduation hurdle, so poor education and education opportunities wouldn't be an issue for those URM recruits. By the time they were recruited, the only "institutional racism" they'd face would be in terms of hiring managers at Facebook, which, let's face it, does not represent an institution. It seems to me that, if at that point, you're claiming any form of racism as the reason for those recruits not being hired, you must necessarily be claiming individual racism.
By the way, returning to my other point, do you know that there wasn't an incentive to actually hire URMs as well?
I thought that the story was that URMs weren't given enough opportunities for recruitment, or were actively discouraged from seeking open positions. Now that a strong recruitment push favoring URMs has apparently failed, you're saying that didn't matter anyway, since racist hiring managers blocked hiring of URM recruits? What will it be next? Say URM recruits are hired, but, surprise surprise, don't perform as well (since they necessarily cannot represent the best available talent as a group -- obviously individual URMs may represent the best available talent), and are either let go or leave after dealing with a "toxic work environment" (of people who actually care about results). I suppose that'll just represent workplace racism, won't it?
By the way, do you actually know if the point system (or something similar) did or did not extend into hiring manager ranks? It'd make sense -- and would fit with Facebook's MO -- that there would be some bias favoring URMs at that level as well, but the article just speculates that there wasn't. If there was an incentive at that level, maybe hiring managers largely preferred quality over quantity (of URMs).
*whoosh*
Nice job making up numbers, but they aren't at all accurate. Rolling and wind resistance isn't negligible, and your generator is going to tack on a lot of drag. Also, do you think that your generator will just drive the electric motor with enough current to allow for hard acceleration or hills (which would also require closely maintained feedback between the motor and generator)? How do you plan to handle that, exactly? The Volt, and other plug-in hybrids, allows it's range extender/generator to drive the transmission directly when it's more efficient to do so; but that won't be an option for your generator add-on.
Moreover, your 10-year battery estimate is way off when the operating battery temperature is actively maintained, and the depletion amount/load is limited, as is done with the Volt (and Teslas, and many other EVs). The Volt in particular is rated (and warrantied) to maintain it's charge capacity for 8-10 years, and, anecdotally, it seems that those claims are accurate. While there will be some degradation, to be sure, it's not at all in line with the numbers you pulled from your ass. As it turns out, battery degradation has been designed for, and the lithium-ion batteries in most EVs are not simply slapped into place or used like those in your phone or laptop.
Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, engineering teams have already considered the stuff that you're just spit-balling? You know, those design teams that actually rigorously researched -- and tested -- their design as opposed to simply saying, "I'll just make an add-on... that'll work!"
I'm sorry, but your idea is terrible.
Funny, the range extender works very well for me: Almost all of my driving is taken care of by that paltry 53 (really ~60 with how I drive) miles supported with a full charge. When I'm on a longer trip, and the gasoline engine is used as well, I'm averaging 42 mpg on the gas engine alone. Is that the best of both worlds? No, but it's pretty damn far from the worst. How do you think you'd average hauling around a generic generator?
By the way, if you live 50+ miles from where you work, maybe it's time to re-evaluate where you live/work. You know, changing your own situation rather than expecting everybody else to design for you.
I've basically done that with mine, so, yes... unless you're using large suitcases, and can't be bothered to hold your laptop bag. If that's the case, maybe suck it up a bit, or pack less? If you must have all your stuff, just buy an RV and don't bitch about your gas bill.
The trouble arises where every driver has that one trip a they make that cannot be met by an EV. You end up owning two cars or you get one efficient gasoline vehicle.
There actually are cars that are designed to address exactly that type of usage model, you know. Speaking personally, I went for a Chevy Volt, though there are other options available. As suggested in the article, most of the driving I do is electric-only, but, for longer trips, the gasoline engine is quite handy. By the way, I've taken it into the mountains numerous times (my most recent outing being to Mt. Sherman) and it's actually really nice to be able to recharge the battery a bit on the way back down.