And they've already become good at making cars, which is why there's thousands of dollars of profit in every Model 3.
False. Tesla loses about $17,000 on every car they sell, overall. If you take gross profit and subtract SG&A (selling general & administrative - costs required to actually sell and deliver a vehicle) they lose about $4000 per car. That's not including R&D or even interest on the debt required to build those cars and facilities in the first place.
They are all making EVs, and all of the ones they have released so far are inferior to a Tesla, and none of them are profitable.
Inferior - in your opinion. And the fact EVs are not profitable (including Teslas - or are you now stating that Tesla is not profitable, even though you said otherwise above?) should give pause to the industry. EVs aren't there because you cannot afford to actually make them.
The method of propulsion informs the design of the entire vehicle. They go hand in hand.
False. Witness basically every EV on the market. They are designed remarkably similar to existing cars. Well, at least those built by profitable car companies (meaning - not Tesla).
You're not looking at the big picture! The fan will be modulated to produce the amazing, courageous iSoothe white noise for sleeping. It's a freaking miracle!
And there are vastly more programs that do not do that. Is this a result of 2+ buttons, or just bad UI design? Because I guarantee you I can build a terrible UI for a single-button mouse, too...
False. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. It was about as partisan a bill as you can ever find, was rammed through (remember Nancy Pelosi's famous line "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it").
The PPACA passed with 60 votes. "On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster.[186] The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)" EVERY Republican voted against it, and there were 40 Republicans at the time. That leaves - 60! Two "independents" who voted lock-step with the Democrats every single time.
That's about 20% of the greater Los Angeles area. It's a VERY small area, all things considered. And Chernobyl was hardly a plant failure; it was a failure of thinking by those purposefully disabling the safety shutdowns. But also note that there is:
Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.
Meaning it was about 25 years, not the 10,000 years originally claimed. So IF you have people stupid enough to purposefully shut off all safety systems, run it hard, and then blow up a "reactor [that] is unique and in that respect the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc", and then it is safe enough to repopulate after 25 years, then yes - it can be an issue. Pretty different from the original claim, eh?
As Tesla is finally starting to realize, the hard part about building an electric car is not the electric part, but the car part. When the existing car manufacturers determine it is finally economically viable to build electric cars, they will wash the startups (Tesla, Faraday Future, and others) away. It's the car that matters, the method of propulsion is a distant second.
Not sure that you need a specific license to operate an ISP in California. You do need to register with the FTB so you can send in your sales tax, but I am not aware of - nor can I find via Google - any required license for operation of an ISP. You can be a foreign corporation (outside of California) and provide ISP services.
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
What State, or even large-scale area, has been rendered as you claim? Fear-mongering is so much easier than reasoned debate, isn't it?
Nice rant based in fantasy. President Trump is trying to fund Yucca Mountain, which President Obama and Senate Majority Leader (at the time) Harry Reid killed. They wanted to keep that nuclear waste in Hanford, rather than in Yucca Mountain. Oh, and you can move down from Washington, to Oregon, to California - then over to NV. No need to go through a "red state" on the way (other than the destination, Nevada).
Sorry, your source talks about the occasional spike. Check the data - for 2017 overall, nuclear out-produced solar, onshore, and offshore wind. It's clear, though, you like the quick blurb rather than the in-depth data so - go ahead, believe what you want. But you don't get your own facts.
I bet the fact the previous President was dead-set against nuclear meant that Congress wouldn't even address the bill or issue unless they had a 100% solid veto-proof supermajority. Sometimes just a change in Administration is all that's needed to give Congress the push to start addressing some issues.
The White House wants to push advanced nuclear, and supports nuclear power legislation - unlike the previous Administration. That's all that's really needed here - Congress will actually pass nuclear power bills now there is a President who understands the benefits of nuclear power.
Spectrum is based in Connecticut. How does California assume it can force an out-of-State company to change its behavior? Or is California saying I can only choose from ISPs that the State deems acceptable - I cannot have a choice in providers from across the Nation like I do now?
Slashdot Mirror
You're welcome.
Edward? Ed Lyle? Is that you? It's been a while since we last talked, I heard you have a small fire at your shop...
Not a single Republican amendment or proposal was included. You're lying.
You mean I cannot buy an iPad or iPhone or iMac any more? They are just called Pad, phone and Mac?
And they've already become good at making cars, which is why there's thousands of dollars of profit in every Model 3.
False. Tesla loses about $17,000 on every car they sell, overall. If you take gross profit and subtract SG&A (selling general & administrative - costs required to actually sell and deliver a vehicle) they lose about $4000 per car. That's not including R&D or even interest on the debt required to build those cars and facilities in the first place.
They are all making EVs, and all of the ones they have released so far are inferior to a Tesla, and none of them are profitable.
Inferior - in your opinion. And the fact EVs are not profitable (including Teslas - or are you now stating that Tesla is not profitable, even though you said otherwise above?) should give pause to the industry. EVs aren't there because you cannot afford to actually make them.
The method of propulsion informs the design of the entire vehicle. They go hand in hand.
False. Witness basically every EV on the market. They are designed remarkably similar to existing cars. Well, at least those built by profitable car companies (meaning - not Tesla).
You're not looking at the big picture! The fan will be modulated to produce the amazing, courageous iSoothe white noise for sleeping. It's a freaking miracle!
And there are vastly more programs that do not do that. Is this a result of 2+ buttons, or just bad UI design? Because I guarantee you I can build a terrible UI for a single-button mouse, too...
False. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. It was about as partisan a bill as you can ever find, was rammed through (remember Nancy Pelosi's famous line "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it").
The PPACA passed with 60 votes. "On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster.[186] The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)" EVERY Republican voted against it, and there were 40 Republicans at the time. That leaves - 60! Two "independents" who voted lock-step with the Democrats every single time.
Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.
Meaning it was about 25 years, not the 10,000 years originally claimed. So IF you have people stupid enough to purposefully shut off all safety systems, run it hard, and then blow up a "reactor [that] is unique and in that respect the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc", and then it is safe enough to repopulate after 25 years, then yes - it can be an issue. Pretty different from the original claim, eh?
At the request of President Obama who zero-lined the budget for Yucca Mountain. Congress followed his wishes.
Which means we should move that much faster to nuclear, correct?
As Tesla is finally starting to realize, the hard part about building an electric car is not the electric part, but the car part. When the existing car manufacturers determine it is finally economically viable to build electric cars, they will wash the startups (Tesla, Faraday Future, and others) away. It's the car that matters, the method of propulsion is a distant second.
Well - no one yet. Oh, you were referring to the Panasonic factory near Reno that Tesla invested in?
Not sure that you need a specific license to operate an ISP in California. You do need to register with the FTB so you can send in your sales tax, but I am not aware of - nor can I find via Google - any required license for operation of an ISP. You can be a foreign corporation (outside of California) and provide ISP services.
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
What State, or even large-scale area, has been rendered as you claim? Fear-mongering is so much easier than reasoned debate, isn't it?
Nice rant based in fantasy. President Trump is trying to fund Yucca Mountain, which President Obama and Senate Majority Leader (at the time) Harry Reid killed. They wanted to keep that nuclear waste in Hanford, rather than in Yucca Mountain. Oh, and you can move down from Washington, to Oregon, to California - then over to NV. No need to go through a "red state" on the way (other than the destination, Nevada).
He's put funding back in his budget proposal. He's doing what he can, from the White House.
Sorry, your source talks about the occasional spike. Check the data - for 2017 overall, nuclear out-produced solar, onshore, and offshore wind. It's clear, though, you like the quick blurb rather than the in-depth data so - go ahead, believe what you want. But you don't get your own facts.
That's not the case, at least in the UK. Nuclear provides more power than solar and on AND offshore wind combined, in the UK.
I bet the fact the previous President was dead-set against nuclear meant that Congress wouldn't even address the bill or issue unless they had a 100% solid veto-proof supermajority. Sometimes just a change in Administration is all that's needed to give Congress the push to start addressing some issues.
The White House wants to push advanced nuclear, and supports nuclear power legislation - unlike the previous Administration. That's all that's really needed here - Congress will actually pass nuclear power bills now there is a President who understands the benefits of nuclear power.
If the rest of the EU is like the UK, nuclear produces more power than solar and wind combined. And ends up being lower cost over 60 years, too...
Spectrum is based in Connecticut. How does California assume it can force an out-of-State company to change its behavior? Or is California saying I can only choose from ISPs that the State deems acceptable - I cannot have a choice in providers from across the Nation like I do now?