Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Average price of new car = $31,252 (Score 1) 659

The average American doesn't even spent $30,000 on a car, so the price range of these new vehicles is still in the realm of the rich for toys and games.

The average price of a new car in America is $31,252. A $40,000 vehicle is not remotely out of reach for a large percent of the population.

A Volt is $35K - tax credit ($7.5K to $9K depending on the state). So the actual cost of buying a Volt is less than the average cost of a new car.

Comment Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

^ This...

I only need 50 miles a day of range almost the entire year. But about 5% of the time, I need 300+ miles of range with the ability to "recharge" in 15 minutes.

Owning a single vehicle that does both tasks costs less than buying two vehicles. It also costs less than buying the EV and renting a truck for the road trips, we don't really have in place a system to do that well, and frankly I don't want to take someone else's beater rental vehicle on a family road trip, I want to take MY vehicle on a family road trip.

A Volt does this now. Quit making excuses...

Comment Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

While you are correct in the sense that if you drive enough, the savings of not buying fuel do add up...

The use case where that is true is narrow...

There are plenty of very efficient small cars that can be purchased for $10K+ fewer dollars than the Volt. Over 5 years of ownership, you'll be hard pressed to burn $10K in gas in a small 4 person car over the cost of recharging a Volt.

Add to that the resale of a Volt in 5 years is likely to be terrible as they keep dropping the price, it makes for an even worse investment.

It may well get there, but the people pushing for it today like to ignore a few details that explain why EVs are hardly a rounding error in vehicle sales.

It isn't because people want to waste money, it is because people have done the math and it makes no sense, unless you're "a true believer".

Riiiiiiiiight, so that bargin $15K ICE car is never going to need maintenance? I have a Volt and my maintenance cost is 0 so far for 2 years. I doubt I will reach the first scheduled maintenance (which can be at 75,000 miles depending on usage patterns) and is just an oil change for the generator which can easily be done myself for $10 in oil. The parent said its about COST, not price. Costs like maintenance that EVs don't really have in practice are not free for ICEs. EVs are cheaper for 90% of drivers daily usage patterns at this point. Not some minor slice of the market, but most of the market. You would have to drive less than 1000 miles a year for an EVs to not to pay off at this point. You are just considering gas costs, but maintenance costs can easily exceed gas costs, especially for cheaper or older ICE cars. Plus the time I don't spend waiting at tollbothes (yea HOV lanes). Just make sure not to lease the Volt as you don't get the $7500 federal tax credit that way.

Comment Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

Range is the issue.

My commute is 40 miles each way. What EV do I buy that ensures me I can get to work and back home on a single charge, accounting for common traffic jams and problems that causes for actual range, and accomodates the lack of charging slots at work?

It would be OK if I paid less than a 30% premium over typical retail price, even better if I pay only a 50% premium over the typical price of a 5-year-old used vehicle, though I generally drive 10-year-old vehicles. I know, that rules out lots of vehicles.

Electric is still not for me.

A Volt would cut your gas usage in half, and if you have charging at the office, then it would be probably 90%. And its $26K after tax credits. Quit making excuses, your choices are about you and not about the EVs available anymore if you can afford a new car. If not, then it will probably be another 3-5 years for you.

Comment Re:Electric. (Score 1) 659

All reasonable points...

Offer the Chevy Volt for $20K and they could sell half a million of them a year...

At $35K, it is a non-starter...

It begins and ends there, all other arguments are really academic...

Its $25K after the tax credits. Quit making excuses...you sound like the ranchers in TX that pray for rain as they deny Climate Change.

Comment Re:And he's the only one? (Score 1) 311

Doesn't mean that CA companies don't try to get you to sign Non-competes all the same. Of course, I've signed many documents over the years working at different startups that I knew couldn't be enforced against me. On more than one occasion, I've told the person asking me to sign, "Of course I'll sign this, there is no way it would ever hold up in court" and then told them here are the CA statutes you are violating and why this contract is worthless. Oh, and BTW, I've changed my mind on the salary, its now $20K/yr more because you don't know how to hire a good lawyer and the expected value of those options are basically 0 because of that. Shockingly, I've had some startups actually pay me the extra $20K...the others I just turned down and soon after found a better startup. Frankly, if a CA startup asks you to sign a non-compete, run simply because that startup is almost certainly going to fail.

Comment Re:Master of manipulation (Score 1) 311

Jobs was a sociopath, but the reason people reacted to him the way they did is because they believed what he was saying was the truth (or at least he really believed it was the truth). In our society, people are lied to so often that anything that looks like the honest truth is very appealing. I know what investors seem to love it when I talk in nasty brutal terms about software, our business, or our competitors. When it comes in an unvarnished form, things have a ring of truth that can't be emulated by a marketing droid, even when the marketing bot happens to be telling the truth. Jobs was able to coast on this fact for a long time before he had to learn to at least act like a decent human being.

Comment Re:Jobs himself said ... (Score 1) 311

No, not 25x more productive, try more like 1000x more productive. Or try this on for size, I've known quite a few engineers that had negative productivity ie if they stopped doing their job, their team actual becomes more productive. How many times more productive is an average engineer over an engineer with negative productivity? N/A? Infinity? The amount of time it takes to write a piece of code isn't about the time designing it, or about how long it took to type in the code, or the testing, or the plan. The ONLY major factor in speed of development is the debugging time, which is a sum of a sequence of random variables of random length. For better engineers who might average 1/10th the number of initial mistakes in the code (ie the length of the random sequence), and who might also find and fix problems in 1/10th the time, you easily get 100x more productive than some average. Or more likely you work in a cube farm far, far away from those 100X and 1000X engineers who have the choice to work other places.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Working...