Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It could happen (Score 1) 213

by Nidi62 (#46789851) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

I think it's all cyclical. Right now where I am, everyone is moving to North Carolina (Why??) People cite a much lower cost of living. That's true -- you can sell your Long Island house and buy (literally) a mansion on several acres in NC. The only problem is that Charlotte, RTP, etc. are still cities and real estate that's close to jobs is going to be more. Your mansion is going to be 25 miles' drive from anywhere. Atlanta has a similar issue -- people deal with multi-hour commutes so they can live in a massive house inside a gated community in the middle of nowhere.

I went to college abut 40 minutes outside Charlotte, and have lived in Metro Atlanta most of my life. For Charlotte, just move to the east side of the city down 74. There is not much out that way, but Indian Trail and Matthews are decently sized and pretty nice, and only about 20 minues from downtown Charlotte. It gets a little more rundown and country as you get towards Monroe and further out (Wingate, the town and university I went to just next to Monroe is literally a 2 stop light town). If you are someone that has to live right in the middle of everything you would hate it. But for someone who wants to live comfortably for cheap it's perfect.

Now, as for Metro Atlanta, I live in Cobb County, mostly in East Cobb. We have houses ranging from $150k all the way up to $1MM plus, all with decent sized lots (not acres worth on average, but you can find those if you don't mind older houses with wooded lots). A lot of recent construction is in the $400k and up range. It is about 20 minutes from downtown and in early rush hour you can be at the Atlanta airport in 40 minutes. The only people with hours-long commutes either live in Newnan, Gwinnett/Cherokee County(dealing with 400 and 575 respectively) or leave right in the middle of rush hour every day.

Comment: Re:Mercedes shouldn't talk. (Score 1) 308

by Nidi62 (#46785185) Attached to: Mercedes Pooh-Poohs Tesla, Says It Has "Limited Potential"

You're an idiot. Continue being a broke asshole. As a guy with a $135,000 Maserati, 5k/year in service would be nice. Guess what, enjoyable cars are expensive. Not everyone is some geek technophile who wants a soulless EV.

You're an idiot and, a rich asshole with no taste to boot. $135k for a Maserati? I think a movie quote here is apropos: you are "a self-indulgent wiener with too much bloody money." Spend your money better, and buy yourself some taste.

Comment: Re:Myopic viewpoint (Score 1) 308

by Nidi62 (#46784311) Attached to: Mercedes Pooh-Poohs Tesla, Says It Has "Limited Potential"

5-7 years? You're living in a dreamland if you think that Telsa will be able to offer something like a Model S for less than half the price in 5-7 years.

I don't expect a Model S for half the price in 5 years. I simply expect a reasonably priced car that actually looks like something people would want to drive. I don't need a lot of the bells and whistles that come in the Model S. Give me an electric with the style and price of a C Class or 3 Series and I, and most likely a lot of other people, will be perfectly happy. (Give me a decently priced electric pick-up/SUV and I will be your customer for life)

Comment: Re:Where is your model S competitor... (Score 1) 308

by Nidi62 (#46783545) Attached to: Mercedes Pooh-Poohs Tesla, Says It Has "Limited Potential"

If you want style you buy the S class. The B class is supposed to be an affordable econobox.

That's the point though. People have shown they want affordable to also look good. That is why the road isn't covered with Priuses and SmartCars. I really think Tesla will be the first company to actually combine affordable, hybrid/electric, and asthetically pleasing. This is the modern day equivalent of Ford saying people can have the Model T in any color they want so long as it's black; the car manufacturers are saying you can have any cheap electric car as long as it looks like that.

Comment: Re:Myopic viewpoint (Score 4, Insightful) 308

by Nidi62 (#46783179) Attached to: Mercedes Pooh-Poohs Tesla, Says It Has "Limited Potential"

If you're spending $70k on a car and your options are between the two companies I could definitely see the appeal in sticking with a tried and true brand.

The thing is, as more and more people buy the $70,000 car, Tesla can start mass producing cheaper models as well. When my truck completely wears out in about 5-7 more years or so, I would certainly consider buying a Tesla if they have a model costing around $35k. As they are able to reach potential customers at the lower price points their brand will grow. Tesla isn't DeLorean, is much more practical than SmartCar, and has much better asthetics than any other electric car out there today. I think the company has legs.

Comment: Re:It's crap (Score 1) 1553

by Nidi62 (#46770385) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

That might have been the case in 1791, when the strenght of an armed force was roughly proportional to the number of men with guns it had.

Today, if you would pit every civilian gun-owner in the US, with all their weapons, against the forces of a single aircraft carrier (one thenth of the aircraft carriers that the US government controls), the civilians would lose. Hellfire missiles beat automatic rifles every time.

Air power alone does not win wars. Tanks can take ground, but they cannot hold it. It takes infantry, boots on the ground, to do both of those things. A small group of infantry, properly prepared and led and on the proper ground, can hold out for a very long time against even a modern army. Look at Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. You don't even have to win the battles to win the war, or beat your enemy to defeat him. You just have to take away his will. You make the cost not worth the benefit.

Comment: Re:It's crap (Score 1) 1553

by Nidi62 (#46770305) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

What? Militias aren't some Libertarian fantasy force. Militias are what countries with limited resources used in lieu of a standing military. They're also all but obsolete in a world where military technology has advanced to the point that private citizens can't be expected to field their own effective arms

Uh, not quite. Even some of the best and wealthiest armies of the times used militias(English Empire, Prussia, etc). The idea was more to have a centralized, smaller, professional fighting force that, when called upon to fight in or defend an area could count on members of the local population to join the ranks and fight. This reduced the number of troops that needed to be trained, fed, housed, and paid, but still allowed a state to field a sufficiently large defensive force. Their record in offensive combat is atrocious, however in defensive situations militia can play a strong role, especially in long-term, low-intensity conflicts. They can be used in anything from guerrilla actions, to urban combat, or even in COIN operations alongside regular troops (my Master's thesis was about this). In urban combat-or at least, urban combat that seeks to do anything more than just simply leveling an entire city- military capabilities change drastically. Armored vehicles cannot safely navigate tight streets and air support is severely restricted if the city has a significant skyline. Soldiers still have to clear individual buildings, leaving them vulnerable even to arms available to (American)civilians such as shotguns and semiautomatic rifles. In places where fully automatic weapons are available to civilians militia have shown to be very effective against regular troops. But in any case, the definition of a militia since at least the 1700s was civilians who arm themselves with their own weapons and join the lines of regular troops. As carefully as the writers of the Constitution chose words, if they had meant anything else they would have chosen a word other than "militia".

And the fact is, if open conflict comes to American soil, militias (in function if not in name) would have to be utilized in some fashion due simply to the size of the country in terms of both landmass and population. Here, I think, is where your "libertarian fantasy force" comes into play, as I do not see large scale open conflict occurring on American soil as long as America remains a cohesive entity.

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Working...