and, evidently, it has special Ebola resistant capabilities as well.

Not to mention the design challenges when striking a balance between open cargo space and hull supports.

Good points on battery life. Having the hotspot and the device constantly connected to each other, and monitoring the internet for incoming calls probably will run the batteries down quickly on both devices. Mobile hotspots (I've used a Huawei 3G with great results) will often 'sleep' when not used for a certain period as well, so that should be considered.

As for VOIP service, Vonage ($$) has a nice feature that allows you to share your number between your home phone and mobile devices, and voicemail email alerts, which might be handy in such a setup.

You can stop auto updates on Android devices for the most part, but switching back and forth to auto/manual or manually implementing updates is a bit inconvenient.

Ahh, I see that now. Thanks.

Is that good? That's 1000 more things that could fail.

Foxconn makes a ton of low end stuff as well.

And the laws should be changed, but they won't get changed as long as people keep fooling themselves into thinking its about keeping Tesla out. The dealers don't want a sales model that allows direct sales because then the other auto makers can cut them out. Its not about competition with other brands, its about their own manufactures cutting them out. Many folks won't even take time to try and understand why the laws were created to begin with. It had as much to do with consumer protection and price fixing as anything. Things have evolved.

But, it makes a lot of people feel better about fighting on behalf of Tesla, and they do deserve credit for aggressively pursuing change and using their popularity.

So, you don't care what you get for your money? Everything should get equal subsidy no matter the payback? I wonder if you've even seen credible numbers and how they are really spend and attributed.

For example, what you also don't see is the huge tax returns fed by nuclear. A typical unit pays over $10M/year in local property taxes, not to mention the large number of highly paid workers at each plant. A big chunk of solar subsidies goes to China and returns very little in tax's to the local communities.

And, if clean air is important, nuclear subsidies have produced many times the return for the dollar than wind and solar.

I think you care more about your vision of the ideal than about how wisely the subsidies are spent.

There are many ways to make a consumption tax progressive, and it is progressive by nature in that those that consume more pay more.

First, eliminating tax on food and basic necessities greatly helps lower income folks. If need be you can have certain exemptions for people with lower incomes that allows them to get a return. What really matters is what is taxed and how much.

We already tax consumption at the state level. You could argue that having a higher available spending budget from not taxing labor would increase the spending power for many even after consumption tax is added, but it all depends on what is taxed and how much.

I think the greater concern for consumption tax approach is that it could driven the emergence of a huge black market. But, since that might mostly include lower end items and benefit lower income folks, it might be an acceptable flaw.

We either have to shift our approach or move to a system where lower income folks have greater capital investments, be it in retirement or other, but that approach, IMO, drives much great risk for high end corruption.