Immigrants? Try people who just have a connecting flight in he USA to another destination. A co-worker just returned from Nicaragua and he was stopped 6 times between the arrival hall and the departure hall. Very likely because he's not white and has a beard. Either that, or his work for the central bank was so interesting everyone wanted to know more about it. And I really can't say which scenario would be creepier.
My wife really wants to visit the USA, but my enthusiasm is lower and lower. Even China has pretty relaxed border controls compared to the USA.
I'll quote the article for you, which helpfully describes points like the one in your question.
Their research revealed that many cloud service providers and content delivery networks allow HTTP host header redirection, including Google, Amazon Cloudfront, Amazon S3, Azure, CloudFlare, Fastly and Akamai. However, most of them only allow it for domains that belong to their customers, so one must become a customer in order to use this technique.
Oh joy. If I were a cyber criminal, which I am not, obviously, I would be focusing all my attention on the country that did that. It must be wonderful to work in a country where encryption is illegal, even for banking apps.
If the article is right about how this works, it should work with any website that obeys the specs. Unless you ban everything that uses https (good luck with that) you're not going to be able to stop this.
Their research revealed that many cloud service providers and content delivery networks allow HTTP host header redirection, including Google, Amazon Cloudfront, Amazon S3, Azure, CloudFlare, Fastly and Akamai. However, most of them only allow it for domains that belong to their customers, so one must become a customer in order to use this technique.
Oh, how tough. I must be a CloudFlare customer to use this. *clickety click* Tadaaaah! Done.
So they're going to block all the major content delivery networks? Might as well just cut the cable to the rest of the world. This can only be stopped if they can get the CDN's and cloud services (all of them) to stop redirecting traffic. They may do it for China, but I doubt they'd do it for Syria or Egypt.
That reminds me of the time I drove through Germany and someone insisted on driving 90 km/h on the 2nd lane of a 5-lane freeway. I overtook with 140 and got into an argument with a driver behind me, who was on the leftmost lane doing 200, but invisible to me because of hills. There was no restriction in that area, so 90 was extremely dangerous given that most people were driving at 140 and didn't expect that speed to appear in lane 2.
We already have the shitty example of trucks overtaking on a 2-lane road with 1 km/h, blocking the road for ages. Now we also get this from Tesla? Dear Elon, either it's no autopilot but an assistant and *I* determine the speed of the car, *OR* it's an autopilot, you decide where and how fast, and I take a nap. It's not "whatever suits me today" when I pay this much for a car. And it really makes me rethink my desire to purchase a model 3.
Just yesterday there was a new contract signed by Shell for a new windturbine field, where they offered 5.45 cents a Kw/h. The Danes have just signed contracts for a new field with 4.99 cents per Kw/h.
That's pretty close to the price of coal, if you ignore the radioactive waste from coal, the issues and risks associated with mining it, the pollution and last but not least, the CO2 contribution. If you factor in those little tidbits, wind energy is now cheaper than coal, which is the cheapest conventional method of generating power.
Given the power the oil companies have in the USA, especially now Rick Perry is the new energy secretary, it will be interesting to see how things work out. Eventually though, the lure of cheap power will probably draw in the USA as well. And maybe the fact they don't have an installed base at that time will work in their favor.
Very likely. They can easily detect temperature and moisture in the air, detect wheelspin etc. and determine sensible max speeds and power from there. As opposed to many drivers.
I was once overtaken while driving 30 km/h on frigging ICE when a car blazed past because duh, 4-wheel drive bro. After 5 minutes I saw him face first in the siding with just two wheels still on it.
Job security is what a lot of people think they have, until the company decides otherwise. As a contractor I have real job security: my skills are continually kept current because, in contrast to people with "job security" I *know* I will get unemployed after some time. I keep up a good network for the same reason. I blog. I attend and speak at conferences.
Now tell me, who do you think has more job security: somebody with outdated skills but a "permanent" position, or me? I've been offered a permanent position at every place I've ever worked. I can tell you that several managers have told me that they'd happily replace their "permanent" worker with me, if I'd accept their offer. All those people they wanted to replace were under the impression they had a permanent job. But they don't. And that is in The Netherlands where we have rather strict employment laws.
I used to think like you. And then I got fed up with my work and struck out on my own and wow! what a great change! It's like stepping behind the curtains and suddenly looking at the stage from behind. I can recommend it to everyone. Even if you only do it for a year, or two, it will be a great learning experience.
Same thing happened to me once. It was one of the reasons to leave.
Why?
First, because the company shows that it cares more about PR to shareholders ("look what a nice company we are, please invest in us. We take corporate responsibility serious and so do our employees") than it cares about the feelings of its employees. They could have given everyone a smaller/cheaper present AND given the same present to just as many kids. That would not have been tax deductible though. Once that becomes a major factor in how you treat your employees, things go downhill *fast*. From that point to restructuring I'd give it two years, tops.
Second, because at the end of the year a company gift, even if it is a bit sucky, says "yes, we appreciate you. You worked hard when we needed you,, even after hours. And we appreciate that. So we give you a present as a token of our appreciation." A handwritten card and a bottle of wine is MUCH better than giving a more expensive present to somebody I don't know. If you want to donate *my* present to charity, at least discuss it with me. Otherwise it's *your* donation on *my* expense.
This move tells everyone at Google that they are now officially turned into replaceable "fte". Once that fallacy gets hold, it's like fungus: it will grow until it kills the host.
Suppose you posted anti North Korean comments on a North Korean website. Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?
You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which not. Your country either has an extradiction agreement with N.-Korea or not. If yes, you can be extradited for anything that's illegal in both countries. If the country you live in feels otherwise, they can strike "insulting foreign heads of state" off the roster and the issue's solved.
I'll repeat: "The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
It's not just the lifestyle, even though it *is* worse than that of almost everyone else, but it's *also* the way in which the healthcare is structured that makes it more expensive and still provides a worse outcome for people with health comparable to other countries. If you read the report you see that in the USA there is a tendency towards a lot of very expensive medical equipment that then has to be used, so people get MRI scans where you'd normally get an X-ray or just a doctor looking at your ankle. They're great for catching cancer, but they won't help much for other ailments and are merely very expensive placebos in that case. Americans also tend to be overmedicated with drug prices much higher than anywhere else. That's a bad combination for the patient (but very good for the pharmaceuticals).
There are several areas in which the USA provides world class care. To the rich. In most areas, it's rather depressing to look at the figures though.
Here is the summary from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, which was set up to improve healthcare in the USA in 1918: US healthcare from a global perspective
Highlights: - High U.S. health care spending due to greater use of medical technology, health care prices - U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes - Health care spending as % of gross GDP, USA vs Canada: 17.1% versus 10.7% (2013)
Some causes: "Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the U.S. in 2013.10 The average price of bypass surgery was $75,345 in the U.S. This is more than $30,000 higher than in the second-highest country, Australia, where the procedure costs $42,130. According to the same data source, MRI and CT scans were also most expensive in the U.S. While these pricing data are subject to significant methodological limitations, they illustrate a pattern of significantly higher prices in many areas of U.S. health care.
Other studies have observed high U.S. prices for pharmaceuticals. A 2013 investigation by Kanavos and colleagues created a cross-national price index for a basket of widely used in-patent pharmaceuticals. In 2010, all countries studied had lower prices than the U.S. In Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, prices were about 50 percent lower.11"
But perhaps, if you pay more, you get more?
"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. "
Okay, but we know a lot of Americans have been smoking more than other folks, and are more... big-boned. Right?
"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
But cancer care is top notch in the USA.
"One area where the U.S. appeared to have comparatively good health outcomes was cancer care. Other research based on survival rates also suggests that U.S. cancer care is above average, though these studies are disputed on methodological grounds."
However: "The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S. had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population compared with 95 in the median OECD country."
To summarize: if you state that Canada has inferior care (imploying that it goes across the board), despite research suggesting the opposite is true, I'd like to see citations.
I find that highly unlikely in the first place, as the timing for a "big one" is not "two months from now" but rather urgently needed by Trump *right now*. Even if they do have something, given the rather suspected source of the documents I think that if they time a really juicy email to appear right before the election it's going to be dismissed as fabricated, and proving it ain't so will take time that just isn't there.
So: don't keep your hopes up. Clinton may be skating the edge of the law, but given the evidence so far, that's it. A bit like Trump, really, except in different areas of the law.
This stupid argument comes up every time range is mentioned. You *won't* be able to hire a long-range car for your vacation because everyone else is also trying to hire a car for their vacation. If the rental companies keep enough cars for 90% of the population that only gets used twice a year they'll have to raise rates far beyond what you are prepared to pay.
It's a stupid argument, and you should feel silly for using it!
Okay: I feel silly:)
But not that much. What is very likely going to happen is an increase in range and number of charging points in the near future, at the same rate as the sale of electric cars, to the point where it's not going to actually be an impediment to long road trips. But yeah, there are going to be a few years where there will be a lot of friction between supply and demand. So let's assume I can't hire a car: in that case I just plan a longer trip to my destination. My parents used to drive a VW beetle that took 3 days to get to the south of France, at top speed. We just drove during the day, then camped somewhere. Some of the best memories are from those little campings in the hill with a steam train running through at sunset, or in the Italian mountains. It's not a problem if that's once again going to be the norm. In Europe we have rather long holidays.
In the US and elsewhere this may be a real problem though. But only until chargers and capacity increase enough.
So then, what's going to replace all the lost revenue from gas taxes?
Likely there's no need to replace that. The removal of subsidies for oil and gas, combined with the lower need to buy oil from regimes we'd rather not deal with, and the lower cost of healthcare due to less cases of long cancer, astma and other assorted ills will more than offset the revenue, I expect.
If you won't be able to register an ICE car, it really doesn't matter whether it's new or used. The used car market is going to take a hit.
It's already taking a hit locally: if you drive an older diesel engine you're going to get a fine in most inner cities in Germany and now increasingly in Holland as well. Resale value of 10 year old diesels isn't high anyway, though.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Meh - I live in a country where I can do all my daily driving within a range of at most 90 km one way. Let's say 200 km for a roundtrip. Most electric cars already get that much mileage. For the holidays I have the option to spend the money I saved on fuel and hire a car at my destination. Over long distances this is already the most useful option. If I really want a roadtrip I can also hire the car for the roadtrip OR spend a few hours more while travelling and recharge. Tesla's network is already getting pretty good and it will recharge while I take a break. I take breaks every 400 km anyway right now, might as well make it every 300 km. It's not as if that's going to be a serious inconvenience.
I know the USA has much more empty space between travel points, but still. For most of the folks in the cities it shouldn't be a big deal to drive electric.
Binding laws are inherently undemocratic. Voters today should not be able to impose policies and costs on future citizens against their will.
Which is exactly what polluting the environment does, actually. It imposes disastrous costs and policies on future generations while raking in the benefits in the present, and while not spending the much smaller amount necessary to prevent a much larger cost later on.
When binding laws have been allowed, they have generally been disastrous, with current voters giving themselves lots of goodies and pushing the cost off on future generations. This is what happened in Detroit.
Binding referenda you mean? Because most laws are binding, that's why they're laws. And the policy of mandating electric cars in no way pushes the cost off to future generations: it's just 13 years from now. I certainly hope to be still alive then! So current voters are apparently mandating something that they themselves have to pay for to avoid incurring a heavy toll on their kids. I applaud that.
Well... Tesla is offering it's IP (not sure how much) to other car makers, Mercedes and BMW obviously know how to build a nice electric car (new models coming out in the next 2 years) and Nissan and Chevrolet obviously know it too.
It wasn't that good. I liked it in parts, not so much in others. But it wasn't very good. IMO Bruno was better. Especially with the OJ baby, the Harrison Ford interview and the tv focus group. The bicycle was... pretty bad though.
Slashdot Mirror
These are the websites from the article. For research purposes. Obviously.
– 4shared.com
– Beevideo.tv
– Bookfi and Libgen
– ExtraTorrent
– Gongchang.com
– Movshare group (allegedly operating Nowvideo.sx, Watchseriesfree.to, Videoweed.es, Novamov.com and others)
– MP3va.com
– Muaban.net
– Myegy.to
– Nanjing Imperiosus (domainerschoice.com)
– Pobieramy24.pl, Darkwarez.pl, Catshare.net and Fileshark.pl
– Private Layer hosted sites (including the-watch-series.to and projectfree-tv.to)
– Putlocker
– RARBG.to
– Rutracker.org and Rapidgator.org
– Taobao.com
– The Pirate Bay
– Uploaded.net
– Vibbo.com
– VK.com
– Youtube-MP3.org
Immigrants? Try people who just have a connecting flight in he USA to another destination. A co-worker just returned from Nicaragua and he was stopped 6 times between the arrival hall and the departure hall. Very likely because he's not white and has a beard. Either that, or his work for the central bank was so interesting everyone wanted to know more about it. And I really can't say which scenario would be creepier.
My wife really wants to visit the USA, but my enthusiasm is lower and lower. Even China has pretty relaxed border controls compared to the USA.
Indeed - some major websites do about 5 redirects before you ever get to any content. It's the norm, not the exception. Good luck with that haystack.
I'll quote the article for you, which helpfully describes points like the one in your question.
Their research revealed that many cloud service providers and content delivery networks allow HTTP host header redirection, including Google, Amazon Cloudfront, Amazon S3, Azure, CloudFlare, Fastly and Akamai. However, most of them only allow it for domains that belong to their customers, so one must become a customer in order to use this technique.
RTFA. It will make the writer happy.
Oh joy. If I were a cyber criminal, which I am not, obviously, I would be focusing all my attention on the country that did that. It must be wonderful to work in a country where encryption is illegal, even for banking apps.
If the article is right about how this works, it should work with any website that obeys the specs. Unless you ban everything that uses https (good luck with that) you're not going to be able to stop this.
Their research revealed that many cloud service providers and content delivery networks allow HTTP host header redirection, including Google, Amazon Cloudfront, Amazon S3, Azure, CloudFlare, Fastly and Akamai. However, most of them only allow it for domains that belong to their customers, so one must become a customer in order to use this technique.
Oh, how tough. I must be a CloudFlare customer to use this. *clickety click* Tadaaaah! Done.
So they're going to block all the major content delivery networks? Might as well just cut the cable to the rest of the world. This can only be stopped if they can get the CDN's and cloud services (all of them) to stop redirecting traffic. They may do it for China, but I doubt they'd do it for Syria or Egypt.
That reminds me of the time I drove through Germany and someone insisted on driving 90 km/h on the 2nd lane of a 5-lane freeway. I overtook with 140 and got into an argument with a driver behind me, who was on the leftmost lane doing 200, but invisible to me because of hills. There was no restriction in that area, so 90 was extremely dangerous given that most people were driving at 140 and didn't expect that speed to appear in lane 2.
We already have the shitty example of trucks overtaking on a 2-lane road with 1 km/h, blocking the road for ages. Now we also get this from Tesla? Dear Elon, either it's no autopilot but an assistant and *I* determine the speed of the car, *OR* it's an autopilot, you decide where and how fast, and I take a nap. It's not "whatever suits me today" when I pay this much for a car. And it really makes me rethink my desire to purchase a model 3.
Just yesterday there was a new contract signed by Shell for a new windturbine field, where they offered 5.45 cents a Kw/h. The Danes have just signed contracts for a new field with 4.99 cents per Kw/h.
That's pretty close to the price of coal, if you ignore the radioactive waste from coal, the issues and risks associated with mining it, the pollution and last but not least, the CO2 contribution. If you factor in those little tidbits, wind energy is now cheaper than coal, which is the cheapest conventional method of generating power.
Given the power the oil companies have in the USA, especially now Rick Perry is the new energy secretary, it will be interesting to see how things work out. Eventually though, the lure of cheap power will probably draw in the USA as well. And maybe the fact they don't have an installed base at that time will work in their favor.
Very likely. They can easily detect temperature and moisture in the air, detect wheelspin etc. and determine sensible max speeds and power from there. As opposed to many drivers.
Amen to that.
I was once overtaken while driving 30 km/h on frigging ICE when a car blazed past because duh, 4-wheel drive bro. After 5 minutes I saw him face first in the siding with just two wheels still on it.
Physics. If you don't get it, it *will* get you.
Job security? You've got to be joking.
Job security is what a lot of people think they have, until the company decides otherwise. As a contractor I have real job security: my skills are continually kept current because, in contrast to people with "job security" I *know* I will get unemployed after some time. I keep up a good network for the same reason. I blog. I attend and speak at conferences.
Now tell me, who do you think has more job security: somebody with outdated skills but a "permanent" position, or me? I've been offered a permanent position at every place I've ever worked. I can tell you that several managers have told me that they'd happily replace their "permanent" worker with me, if I'd accept their offer. All those people they wanted to replace were under the impression they had a permanent job. But they don't. And that is in The Netherlands where we have rather strict employment laws.
I used to think like you. And then I got fed up with my work and struck out on my own and wow! what a great change! It's like stepping behind the curtains and suddenly looking at the stage from behind. I can recommend it to everyone. Even if you only do it for a year, or two, it will be a great learning experience.
You're missing the point.
Same thing happened to me once. It was one of the reasons to leave.
Why?
First, because the company shows that it cares more about PR to shareholders ("look what a nice company we are, please invest in us. We take corporate responsibility serious and so do our employees") than it cares about the feelings of its employees. They could have given everyone a smaller/cheaper present AND given the same present to just as many kids. That would not have been tax deductible though. Once that becomes a major factor in how you treat your employees, things go downhill *fast*. From that point to restructuring I'd give it two years, tops.
Second, because at the end of the year a company gift, even if it is a bit sucky, says "yes, we appreciate you. You worked hard when we needed you,, even after hours. And we appreciate that. So we give you a present as a token of our appreciation." A handwritten card and a bottle of wine is MUCH better than giving a more expensive present to somebody I don't know. If you want to donate *my* present to charity, at least discuss it with me. Otherwise it's *your* donation on *my* expense.
This move tells everyone at Google that they are now officially turned into replaceable "fte". Once that fallacy gets hold, it's like fungus: it will grow until it kills the host.
.... keeping an eye on your every move
If he's a civil servant, I don't think that will be a huge problem.
Suppose you posted anti North Korean comments on a North Korean website. Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?
You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which not. Your country either has an extradiction agreement with N.-Korea or not. If yes, you can be extradited for anything that's illegal in both countries. If the country you live in feels otherwise, they can strike "insulting foreign heads of state" off the roster and the issue's solved.
I'll repeat: "The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
It's not just the lifestyle, even though it *is* worse than that of almost everyone else, but it's *also* the way in which the healthcare is structured that makes it more expensive and still provides a worse outcome for people with health comparable to other countries. If you read the report you see that in the USA there is a tendency towards a lot of very expensive medical equipment that then has to be used, so people get MRI scans where you'd normally get an X-ray or just a doctor looking at your ankle. They're great for catching cancer, but they won't help much for other ailments and are merely very expensive placebos in that case. Americans also tend to be overmedicated with drug prices much higher than anywhere else. That's a bad combination for the patient (but very good for the pharmaceuticals).
There are several areas in which the USA provides world class care. To the rich. In most areas, it's rather depressing to look at the figures though.
Here is the summary from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, which was set up to improve healthcare in the USA in 1918: US healthcare from a global perspective
Highlights:
- High U.S. health care spending due to greater use of medical technology, health care prices
- U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes
- Health care spending as % of gross GDP, USA vs Canada: 17.1% versus 10.7% (2013)
Some causes:
"Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the U.S. in 2013.10 The average price of bypass surgery was $75,345 in the U.S. This is more than $30,000 higher than in the second-highest country, Australia, where the procedure costs $42,130. According to the same data source, MRI and CT scans were also most expensive in the U.S. While these pricing data are subject to significant methodological limitations, they illustrate a pattern of significantly higher prices in many areas of U.S. health care.
Other studies have observed high U.S. prices for pharmaceuticals. A 2013 investigation by Kanavos and colleagues created a cross-national price index for a basket of widely used in-patent pharmaceuticals. In 2010, all countries studied had lower prices than the U.S. In Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, prices were about 50 percent lower.11"
But perhaps, if you pay more, you get more?
"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. "
Okay, but we know a lot of Americans have been smoking more than other folks, and are more... big-boned. Right?
"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
But cancer care is top notch in the USA.
"One area where the U.S. appeared to have comparatively good health outcomes was cancer care. Other research based on survival rates also suggests that U.S. cancer care is above average, though these studies are disputed on methodological grounds."
However: "The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S. had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population compared with 95 in the median OECD country."
To summarize: if you state that Canada has inferior care (imploying that it goes across the board), despite research suggesting the opposite is true, I'd like to see citations.
I find that highly unlikely in the first place, as the timing for a "big one" is not "two months from now" but rather urgently needed by Trump *right now*. Even if they do have something, given the rather suspected source of the documents I think that if they time a really juicy email to appear right before the election it's going to be dismissed as fabricated, and proving it ain't so will take time that just isn't there.
So: don't keep your hopes up. Clinton may be skating the edge of the law, but given the evidence so far, that's it. A bit like Trump, really, except in different areas of the law.
This stupid argument comes up every time range is mentioned. You *won't* be able to hire a long-range car for your vacation because everyone else is also trying to hire a car for their vacation. If the rental companies keep enough cars for 90% of the population that only gets used twice a year they'll have to raise rates far beyond what you are prepared to pay.
It's a stupid argument, and you should feel silly for using it!
Okay: I feel silly :)
But not that much. What is very likely going to happen is an increase in range and number of charging points in the near future, at the same rate as the sale of electric cars, to the point where it's not going to actually be an impediment to long road trips. But yeah, there are going to be a few years where there will be a lot of friction between supply and demand. So let's assume I can't hire a car: in that case I just plan a longer trip to my destination. My parents used to drive a VW beetle that took 3 days to get to the south of France, at top speed. We just drove during the day, then camped somewhere. Some of the best memories are from those little campings in the hill with a steam train running through at sunset, or in the Italian mountains. It's not a problem if that's once again going to be the norm. In Europe we have rather long holidays.
In the US and elsewhere this may be a real problem though. But only until chargers and capacity increase enough.
So then, what's going to replace all the lost revenue from gas taxes?
Likely there's no need to replace that. The removal of subsidies for oil and gas, combined with the lower need to buy oil from regimes we'd rather not deal with, and the lower cost of healthcare due to less cases of long cancer, astma and other assorted ills will more than offset the revenue, I expect.
It's a bit different in Germany since Mercedes makes a lot of trucks... they have a *bit* more clout than whale oil workers.
If you won't be able to register an ICE car, it really doesn't matter whether it's new or used. The used car market is going to take a hit.
It's already taking a hit locally: if you drive an older diesel engine you're going to get a fine in most inner cities in Germany and now increasingly in Holland as well. Resale value of 10 year old diesels isn't high anyway, though.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Meh - I live in a country where I can do all my daily driving within a range of at most 90 km one way. Let's say 200 km for a roundtrip. Most electric cars already get that much mileage. For the holidays I have the option to spend the money I saved on fuel and hire a car at my destination. Over long distances this is already the most useful option. If I really want a roadtrip I can also hire the car for the roadtrip OR spend a few hours more while travelling and recharge. Tesla's network is already getting pretty good and it will recharge while I take a break. I take breaks every 400 km anyway right now, might as well make it every 300 km. It's not as if that's going to be a serious inconvenience.
I know the USA has much more empty space between travel points, but still. For most of the folks in the cities it shouldn't be a big deal to drive electric.
Binding laws are inherently undemocratic. Voters today should not be able to impose policies and costs on future citizens against their will.
Which is exactly what polluting the environment does, actually. It imposes disastrous costs and policies on future generations while raking in the benefits in the present, and while not spending the much smaller amount necessary to prevent a much larger cost later on.
When binding laws have been allowed, they have generally been disastrous, with current voters giving themselves lots of goodies and pushing the cost off on future generations. This is what happened in Detroit.
Binding referenda you mean? Because most laws are binding, that's why they're laws. And the policy of mandating electric cars in no way pushes the cost off to future generations: it's just 13 years from now. I certainly hope to be still alive then! So current voters are apparently mandating something that they themselves have to pay for to avoid incurring a heavy toll on their kids. I applaud that.
Well... Tesla is offering it's IP (not sure how much) to other car makers, Mercedes and BMW obviously know how to build a nice electric car (new models coming out in the next 2 years) and Nissan and Chevrolet obviously know it too.
I agree though, Borat was robbed.
It wasn't that good. I liked it in parts, not so much in others. But it wasn't very good. IMO Bruno was better. Especially with the OJ baby, the Harrison Ford interview and the tv focus group. The bicycle was... pretty bad though.