And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half.
Neither did Tesla. They bought a fully-functional factory from Toyota and GM. And you would think after 10 years of "production" that Tesla would have a better idea about how to do it...
(It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
Yep! The average Toyota is closer to half that amount. And yet, Toyota consistently makes a profit whereas Tesla consistently loses money. I guess if you want to gamble the value of a warranty/support on a $50K+ vehicle on a company that doesn't know how to make a profit, you have quite a bit of money to fritter away!
It was on the Silver Shadow II I owned for a few years back in the mid-90s. You could pick them up for $25K, and they kept most of that value when sold 3-4 years later...
Like your non-sequitur? RR has a waiting list as well, yet they can deliver quicker than Tesla. And I have seen Model 3s in the wild, as well as one owned by a coworker at Dolby. So... It's nice, but about what I'd expect from a solid $20K Kia.
But hey, you keep cheer-leading a 6-12 month wait for cars, from a company that was supposed to be delivering 5K/week last fall (then winter, then spring, now late summer), and still does NOT make a profit - BEFORE R&D and capital equipment expenditures.
So - if you order today, you only have to wait 6 to 9 months! And if you had ordered the sub-$50K option, you only have to way another 6 to 12 months! Hurray! Tesla is cranking right along!
The Model 3 with Long Range Battery and All Wheel Drive Dual Motor and the Performance versions are going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 9 months.
As for the least expensive version of the Model 3 with the Standard battery pack starting at $35,000 in the US, the timeline for new reservations is going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 12 months.
Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering? Really? Rolls Royce can hand-build you a fully-bespoke car faster than that...
Well, I do know that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil in the lower 48, and it is economically viable at today's oil prices. That would be close to 3 centuries of oil reserves - plenty of time to make real movement toward either breeder reactors (quick) or fusion (slower to achieve, but reasonable with a 300 year effort). So the cost would be about what it is, today - if we had the political willpower to recover it.
Now, Europe? Not a clue, we've been stung going to war in the Mideast to protect their oil supplies, I suggest we wean them off of Uncle Sugar and let them start acting like grown-up countries and working to stabilize their own futures, rather than constantly leaning on us to do so...
No no no, you don't get to say that! We're told that - when the inconvenient fact about US emissions dropping per capita - that it's only because we're forcing China to do the polluting for us, so it's still our fault! Remember, he who has the gold must be guilty of exploitation somewhere...
So the costs that are being bandied about as "lower than fossil fuels/nuclear!" aren't the real costs - they do not include the requisite storage? What will the price actually be at that point, given the costs of increased "green" power is higher right now without the appropriate storage systems?
Your bank is screwing you. I do a wire transfer from HSBC in Hong Kong to either Germany (3 weeks ago) or the US (1 week ago) for $14.65; now, the receiving bank charged ~$23 (Germany) and $25 (US). When I receive wire transfers from the EU or the US to HK, I pay $14.65. So you're getting screwed - find a better bank. Wire transfers - flat fee - for less than $15 on my side...
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . ..”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . ..”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
Because people get the 97% claim wrong when it comes to climate. It's a fallacious statement on the face of it; by no means do 97 (not 98, but what's a little inflation, eh?) percent of climate scientists agree that we have man-made global warming. It was a bad study, cooked for a desired result, and it got fools to believe it and quote it out...
Ground Prox systems tend to work really well in planes and scream at the pilot "PULL UP! PULL UP!" plenty early to avoid any issue (I worked on them for a little bit, back in the 1980s). Likewise collision RADAR returns on marine autopilot systems. If something is within 3-5 miles of your boat, it will scream at you until you turn it off (meaning you are now back in control). Does the Tesla Autopilot issue any loud warning at all to grab the attention of the driver?
Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."
The issue is that Tesla sells an Autopilot, whilst everyone else sells a driver assist package. To the average person, Autopilot means it will pilot itself - you don't have to do anything. Driver assist means it will help, but you're still the driver. The issue is Tesla uses highly-misleading words to describe their under-performing product and then gets upset when people are misled. Change the freaking name from Autopilot! But Elon can't do that, because it would be an admission of failure...
Slashdot Mirror
And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half.
Neither did Tesla. They bought a fully-functional factory from Toyota and GM. And you would think after 10 years of "production" that Tesla would have a better idea about how to do it...
(It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
Yep! The average Toyota is closer to half that amount. And yet, Toyota consistently makes a profit whereas Tesla consistently loses money. I guess if you want to gamble the value of a warranty/support on a $50K+ vehicle on a company that doesn't know how to make a profit, you have quite a bit of money to fritter away!
It was on the Silver Shadow II I owned for a few years back in the mid-90s. You could pick them up for $25K, and they kept most of that value when sold 3-4 years later...
When you have no answer - tap dance, distract, and obfuscate. Musk is a master at that...
Like your non-sequitur? RR has a waiting list as well, yet they can deliver quicker than Tesla. And I have seen Model 3s in the wild, as well as one owned by a coworker at Dolby. So... It's nice, but about what I'd expect from a solid $20K Kia.
But hey, you keep cheer-leading a 6-12 month wait for cars, from a company that was supposed to be delivering 5K/week last fall (then winter, then spring, now late summer), and still does NOT make a profit - BEFORE R&D and capital equipment expenditures.
Tesla doesn't have the fit-and-finish of Rolls Royce.
The Model 3 with Long Range Battery and All Wheel Drive Dual Motor and the Performance versions are going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 9 months.
As for the least expensive version of the Model 3 with the Standard battery pack starting at $35,000 in the US, the timeline for new reservations is going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 12 months.
Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering? Really? Rolls Royce can hand-build you a fully-bespoke car faster than that...
Awesome rant, yet:
How does that relate to the correlation between amount of green energy and cost per kWh?
If it's not fact-based, and demands immediate action for some random reason, then I tend to be quite skeptical. How about you?
So it's the crass manipulation of solar and wind in Denmark and Germany that makes their power super expensive?
Which relates to the correlation between amount of green energy and cost per kWh - how?
Well, I do know that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil in the lower 48, and it is economically viable at today's oil prices. That would be close to 3 centuries of oil reserves - plenty of time to make real movement toward either breeder reactors (quick) or fusion (slower to achieve, but reasonable with a 300 year effort). So the cost would be about what it is, today - if we had the political willpower to recover it.
Now, Europe? Not a clue, we've been stung going to war in the Mideast to protect their oil supplies, I suggest we wean them off of Uncle Sugar and let them start acting like grown-up countries and working to stabilize their own futures, rather than constantly leaning on us to do so...
No no no, you don't get to say that! We're told that - when the inconvenient fact about US emissions dropping per capita - that it's only because we're forcing China to do the polluting for us, so it's still our fault! Remember, he who has the gold must be guilty of exploitation somewhere...
So the costs that are being bandied about as "lower than fossil fuels/nuclear!" aren't the real costs - they do not include the requisite storage? What will the price actually be at that point, given the costs of increased "green" power is higher right now without the appropriate storage systems?
??? That is a cut from the link I posted. Apparently you don't like to follow and read links?
Why, because you want our power costs to skyrocket like other countries who have done a big wind + solar push? More renewables = higher electricity costs...
Hey, my gas is natural, and I'm not a fossil yet! Now get off my lawn. But before you go, pass the beans...
Your bank is screwing you. I do a wire transfer from HSBC in Hong Kong to either Germany (3 weeks ago) or the US (1 week ago) for $14.65; now, the receiving bank charged ~$23 (Germany) and $25 (US). When I receive wire transfers from the EU or the US to HK, I pay $14.65. So you're getting screwed - find a better bank. Wire transfers - flat fee - for less than $15 on my side...
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
Yes, it does. And here's another one. But go ahead, believe what you want to believe, you are entitled to your own facts!
WOOSH. What was the VERY END of his post, as the GP AC complained about...
Because people get the 97% claim wrong when it comes to climate. It's a fallacious statement on the face of it; by no means do 97 (not 98, but what's a little inflation, eh?) percent of climate scientists agree that we have man-made global warming. It was a bad study, cooked for a desired result, and it got fools to believe it and quote it out...
What do you have against his name? Just don't like Ryans in general, or this one in particular?
Ground Prox systems tend to work really well in planes and scream at the pilot "PULL UP! PULL UP!" plenty early to avoid any issue (I worked on them for a little bit, back in the 1980s). Likewise collision RADAR returns on marine autopilot systems. If something is within 3-5 miles of your boat, it will scream at you until you turn it off (meaning you are now back in control). Does the Tesla Autopilot issue any loud warning at all to grab the attention of the driver?
Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."
The issue is that Tesla sells an Autopilot, whilst everyone else sells a driver assist package. To the average person, Autopilot means it will pilot itself - you don't have to do anything. Driver assist means it will help, but you're still the driver. The issue is Tesla uses highly-misleading words to describe their under-performing product and then gets upset when people are misled. Change the freaking name from Autopilot! But Elon can't do that, because it would be an admission of failure...
It's not huge, it's just big boned!