I hope that you realize that Facebook has very likely been able to tie that fake account back to you. They have found ways to synthesize accounts tied to people's real identities for people who have never had Facebook accounts. Connecting you to your fake account would be trivial by comparison.
Nissan offers both new and refurbished replacement battery packs. I don't have the exact costs, but the new packs cost in the ballpark of $7k and bring the range up to the 75 ~ 85 mile range. The refurbished packs cost in the ballpark of $3k and bring the range up to about 50 ~ 60 miles--really more of an option if the pack completely fails out of warranty.
If I were to buy a used Leaf, I would either buy one that looks like it will meet my needs for the next few years, or find one with a battery pack that has lost most of its range and replace the pack with a new one immediately.
You can pick up some original Leafs in great condition in the $7k to $9k range. Even with degraded batteries they are still good for about 50 miles. And they are great cars as well.
How will Outrageous Acts of Science survive? Although to be honest I have always been shocked at what they have been able to find and somewhat concerned that they are in a subtle way encouraging some crazy videos.
Agreed. If I had an employee that kept escalating a non-issue I would question his or her judgement, likely demote them and eventually fire them. Unless there is more to the story than has been released this is a silly lawsuit.
"Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released."
You are forgetting about the, albeit small amounts of, sulfur, mercury, and particulates with moderate amounts of nitrogen oxides. Certainly much cleaner than burning gas, but not completely clean either and should not be used as a benchmark as such.
The LA Times article does not provide a breakdown of the number nor a comparison of subsidies for competing companies or competing industries. The article also lumps in SpaceX and SolarCity with Tesla.
From the article, "The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars." The number notes is 4.9B. That brings us under 3B.
Solar City was responsible for another 0.5B for solar installations. These subsidies are only available to the purchaser, but may be claimed by the installer depending on the financing agreement.
You first need to take off at least 1.5B for the EV tax benefit being this money does not go to Tesla. Take another 0.5B for the carbon credits being the market is competitive and the government is not paying this price.
Tesla is receiving about 1.5B in performance benefits (not direct subsidies) for the Gigafactory. While that seems large, "Mississippi and Tennessee have provided $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, in subsidies to Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) and VW." [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-mazda-jobs-factbox/factbox-u-s-states-woo-automakers-with-17-billion-in-subsidies-since-1976-idUSKBN1AK2BI]
SolarCity (now Tesla) received another 700M in benefits for the PV manufacturing plant. Again, this is not out of the ordanary, but I don't see either the LA Times or you complaining about other companies.
SpaceX received 20m in economic subsidies for building its facilities. That actually seems low compared to what other firms receive. Not sure why the article even brought this up. The article does mention that, "Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force." Is the 5.5B good or bad? Compared to the service SpaceX delivers versus historical costs the governament likely benefits more than the total "Musk" subsidies combined, but this isn't really mentioned by the LA Times.
Now that accounts for all but some left-over change.
But here is the real kicker from the article: "But public subsidies for Musk's companies stand out both for the amount, relative to the size of the companies, and for their dependence on them." So the LA Times would not have a problem it these companies were large established corporations.
Looks like you are in the "Down with the little guy" camp.
The Slate article basically said that the government would have benefited much more had they made an equity investment rather than make a loan. I agree, but that wasn't was the government did (except in the case of GM). Typically a government will prefer loaning money to avoid having the appearance of being "state-run." A loan spells out all the terms without getting involved in management. Loans are also paid back over time so that money is recouped sooner is small sums. An equity investment requires more ownership types decisions including when to liquidate. I don't disagree with the premise, but this is hardly Tesla sticking it to the government. It is much more akin to armchair quarterbacking with an ax to grind.
I have no less disdain for the failure of controls on the police side of the problem. However, your response emphasized the culpability of the swatter. The swatter will likely be charged with felony murder being a death occurred in the act of a felony. While some may argue that the death was unforeseeable or generally criticize the concept of felony murder, in this case there is a clear element of reckless indifference because the swatter is fully aware of the lack of polic controls and hence potential outcome.
When Net Neutrality is lifted carriers will be able to prioritize traffic based on agreement with content providers. This is effectively a type of licensing agreement. If carriers are acting effectively in a licensing and redistribution capacity does that mean that they will be illegally re-licensing and distributing content for which they have no content provider agreements?
I think that the carriers are looking at this and an arbitrage opportunity, however, this could crush them if content providers turn the tables and start demanding fees from the carriers for the privilege of including content on their networks. This is, after all, how cable TV works. If the carriers want to model things after cable TV they might get more than they bargained for.
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but I am not sure how it relates to the article (press release). The point is that including solar panels into the analysis muddies the point of the analysis. If the press release stated that researchers found a more efficient method for isolating and storing hydrogen, then that would be interesting and would possibly make hydrogen more competitive. Any improvements on the solar panel side benefits all the competing energy storage methods as well.
I don't know what all the facts are being this was little more than a press release. I can envision cases where using hydrogen as an energy store makes sense. However, at this point it is not clear that the press release is anything more than a way to generate funding.
It is only interesting if the solar panel part of the equation is irrelevant. We already know that we can generate electricity with solar panels. If the leap forward is with solar panel efficiency then that just makes all uses of electricity more cost effective. It doesn't make the hydrogen process any more efficient relative to other uses of electricity.
The only way to make the hydrogen process attractive relative to other more efficient systems using solar panels is for solar panels to become so cheap and efficient producing an over abundance of electricity that the cost difference is de minimis.
I think Musk is more opposed to the leverage the other auto makers would have over the unions and their ability to interfere with Tesla's business than the notion of collective bargaining. If you look back at history the big automakers would utilize any lever they have (unions, parts makers, law makers, etc.) to keep out new entrats into the market.
In order for Tesla to succeed they need to own their own destiny and not be at all dependent on anything the other automakers can influence.
Interesting that you are casting this as a conservative versus liberal. I do not believe, as you infer, that conservatives are asshats or that they abhor diversity. I know many conservatives and liberal who respect each other and work well together across gender and racial lines. The position you are taking appears to be borderline alt-right. Is that what you intended?
I don't care how good one engineer is. If he is an asshat he will likely drive away more talent then he can ever dream of. I have been in companies one might consider a part of the "good ol' boy's network." When HR demanded that the pin-up posters come down the engineers screamed about how much more valuable they were to the company than any whiners. It was a pleasure to watch as over time each one of these "top-notch" engineers was walked out the door. And to add icing on the cake, once these asshats were gone people who were otherwise looked over stood up and did some incredible work.
The moral of the story is that you get what you reward. If you reward people complaining about their personal injustices then you will develop a company full of such people. (purposely ambiguous) If you reward people who work well in diverse groups then you will end up with a company that works well regardless of individual differences.
Your comment demonstrates your complete lack of understanding regarding what it takes and what occurred to achieve market dominance not to mention what constitutes sound software architecture.
I don't disagree with breaking up the semi-monopolies. The problem is that spectrum and last mile right of way tend to put companies into a monopoly position. It is probably easier to open up the last mile market, but pole rights complicate things greatly. Some carriers "service the poles" in exchange for exclusive competitive access. Spectrum, on the other hand, must be governed if it is to work at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope that you realize that Facebook has very likely been able to tie that fake account back to you. They have found ways to synthesize accounts tied to people's real identities for people who have never had Facebook accounts. Connecting you to your fake account would be trivial by comparison.
Nissan offers both new and refurbished replacement battery packs. I don't have the exact costs, but the new packs cost in the ballpark of $7k and bring the range up to the 75 ~ 85 mile range. The refurbished packs cost in the ballpark of $3k and bring the range up to about 50 ~ 60 miles--really more of an option if the pack completely fails out of warranty.
If I were to buy a used Leaf, I would either buy one that looks like it will meet my needs for the next few years, or find one with a battery pack that has lost most of its range and replace the pack with a new one immediately.
You can pick up some original Leafs in great condition in the $7k to $9k range. Even with degraded batteries they are still good for about 50 miles. And they are great cars as well.
How will Outrageous Acts of Science survive? Although to be honest I have always been shocked at what they have been able to find and somewhat concerned that they are in a subtle way encouraging some crazy videos.
Open source does eliminate competition. Open source ensures that the best ideas win out regardless of the origin of the idea.
Agreed. If I had an employee that kept escalating a non-issue I would question his or her judgement, likely demote them and eventually fire them. Unless there is more to the story than has been released this is a silly lawsuit.
Minor correction: Damaged vehicles were repaired and then sold as used rather than as new.
"Natural gas actually is "clean" emissions wise, with very little other than CO2 and water being released."
You are forgetting about the, albeit small amounts of, sulfur, mercury, and particulates with moderate amounts of nitrogen oxides. Certainly much cleaner than burning gas, but not completely clean either and should not be used as a benchmark as such.
The LA Times article does not provide a breakdown of the number nor a comparison of subsidies for competing companies or competing industries. The article also lumps in SpaceX and SolarCity with Tesla.
From the article, "The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars." The number notes is 4.9B. That brings us under 3B.
Solar City was responsible for another 0.5B for solar installations. These subsidies are only available to the purchaser, but may be claimed by the installer depending on the financing agreement.
You first need to take off at least 1.5B for the EV tax benefit being this money does not go to Tesla. Take another 0.5B for the carbon credits being the market is competitive and the government is not paying this price.
Tesla is receiving about 1.5B in performance benefits (not direct subsidies) for the Gigafactory. While that seems large, "Mississippi and Tennessee have provided $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, in subsidies to Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) and VW." [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-mazda-jobs-factbox/factbox-u-s-states-woo-automakers-with-17-billion-in-subsidies-since-1976-idUSKBN1AK2BI]
SolarCity (now Tesla) received another 700M in benefits for the PV manufacturing plant. Again, this is not out of the ordanary, but I don't see either the LA Times or you complaining about other companies.
SpaceX received 20m in economic subsidies for building its facilities. That actually seems low compared to what other firms receive. Not sure why the article even brought this up. The article does mention that, "Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force." Is the 5.5B good or bad? Compared to the service SpaceX delivers versus historical costs the governament likely benefits more than the total "Musk" subsidies combined, but this isn't really mentioned by the LA Times.
Now that accounts for all but some left-over change.
But here is the real kicker from the article: "But public subsidies for Musk's companies stand out both for the amount, relative to the size of the companies, and for their dependence on them." So the LA Times would not have a problem it these companies were large established corporations.
Looks like you are in the "Down with the little guy" camp.
The Slate article basically said that the government would have benefited much more had they made an equity investment rather than make a loan. I agree, but that wasn't was the government did (except in the case of GM). Typically a government will prefer loaning money to avoid having the appearance of being "state-run." A loan spells out all the terms without getting involved in management. Loans are also paid back over time so that money is recouped sooner is small sums. An equity investment requires more ownership types decisions including when to liquidate. I don't disagree with the premise, but this is hardly Tesla sticking it to the government. It is much more akin to armchair quarterbacking with an ax to grind.
If he were really thinking long term then all encryption is breakable.
I have no less disdain for the failure of controls on the police side of the problem. However, your response emphasized the culpability of the swatter. The swatter will likely be charged with felony murder being a death occurred in the act of a felony. While some may argue that the death was unforeseeable or generally criticize the concept of felony murder, in this case there is a clear element of reckless indifference because the swatter is fully aware of the lack of polic controls and hence potential outcome.
Why only 10 years for whoever swatted? Why not life in prison as well?
So what you are saying is that until Tesla can solve every use-case they cannot possibly sell any trucks?
When Net Neutrality is lifted carriers will be able to prioritize traffic based on agreement with content providers. This is effectively a type of licensing agreement. If carriers are acting effectively in a licensing and redistribution capacity does that mean that they will be illegally re-licensing and distributing content for which they have no content provider agreements?
I think that the carriers are looking at this and an arbitrage opportunity, however, this could crush them if content providers turn the tables and start demanding fees from the carriers for the privilege of including content on their networks. This is, after all, how cable TV works. If the carriers want to model things after cable TV they might get more than they bargained for.
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but I am not sure how it relates to the article (press release). The point is that including solar panels into the analysis muddies the point of the analysis. If the press release stated that researchers found a more efficient method for isolating and storing hydrogen, then that would be interesting and would possibly make hydrogen more competitive. Any improvements on the solar panel side benefits all the competing energy storage methods as well.
I don't know what all the facts are being this was little more than a press release. I can envision cases where using hydrogen as an energy store makes sense. However, at this point it is not clear that the press release is anything more than a way to generate funding.
It is only interesting if the solar panel part of the equation is irrelevant. We already know that we can generate electricity with solar panels. If the leap forward is with solar panel efficiency then that just makes all uses of electricity more cost effective. It doesn't make the hydrogen process any more efficient relative to other uses of electricity.
The only way to make the hydrogen process attractive relative to other more efficient systems using solar panels is for solar panels to become so cheap and efficient producing an over abundance of electricity that the cost difference is de minimis.
Are you claiming that we have not manipulated the markets already?
Maybe a better approach would be to internalize all the costs of each technology and let the markets decide the winner.
I think Musk is more opposed to the leverage the other auto makers would have over the unions and their ability to interfere with Tesla's business than the notion of collective bargaining. If you look back at history the big automakers would utilize any lever they have (unions, parts makers, law makers, etc.) to keep out new entrats into the market.
In order for Tesla to succeed they need to own their own destiny and not be at all dependent on anything the other automakers can influence.
Interesting that you are casting this as a conservative versus liberal. I do not believe, as you infer, that conservatives are asshats or that they abhor diversity. I know many conservatives and liberal who respect each other and work well together across gender and racial lines. The position you are taking appears to be borderline alt-right. Is that what you intended?
I don't care how good one engineer is. If he is an asshat he will likely drive away more talent then he can ever dream of. I have been in companies one might consider a part of the "good ol' boy's network." When HR demanded that the pin-up posters come down the engineers screamed about how much more valuable they were to the company than any whiners. It was a pleasure to watch as over time each one of these "top-notch" engineers was walked out the door. And to add icing on the cake, once these asshats were gone people who were otherwise looked over stood up and did some incredible work.
The moral of the story is that you get what you reward. If you reward people complaining about their personal injustices then you will develop a company full of such people. (purposely ambiguous) If you reward people who work well in diverse groups then you will end up with a company that works well regardless of individual differences.
Your comment demonstrates your complete lack of understanding regarding what it takes and what occurred to achieve market dominance not to mention what constitutes sound software architecture.
LastPass has had some recent problems as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://blog.lastpass.com/2017...
I don't disagree with breaking up the semi-monopolies. The problem is that spectrum and last mile right of way tend to put companies into a monopoly position. It is probably easier to open up the last mile market, but pole rights complicate things greatly. Some carriers "service the poles" in exchange for exclusive competitive access. Spectrum, on the other hand, must be governed if it is to work at all.
Got it. Since the carriers are in a psudo-monopoly position they should be free to exploit their protected position for all its worth.
Wrong! The key to an open and free Internet is to regulate the Internet providers.