Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 225

hmm... I'm not sure if I'm with you on this. I agree it's hard to see this as a setback. I don't believe it is. I imagine we learned a great deal about the process from the failure and should be able to achieve better results the next time.

I don't have a clear understanding of how we could apply such science into applied engineering today, but I'm wondering if we learned a lot more than is visible on the surface. Let's consider that we now know how to create that much pressure. Let's also consider that we know that helium can actually become metallic.

Ok... let's also consider that once the material is compressed, the energy is stored and it may be possible the experts in forming diamond crystals will be able to engineer a more perfect structure for the containment of the metal without the need to apply additional pressure. It is also possible that as a room-temperature super conductor, we might be able to learn how to encapsulate liquid helium in a crystalline structure on a quasi-molecular (proper term?) level. We may be able to find a way to produce some sort of liquid like beads of minuscule room temperature superconductors. I may be possible to crystallize large amounts (billions of parts) of metallic hydrogen in arrays of crystal so that it might be etched.

We could also possible find that this could be an alternative method of storing large amounts of energy for use in space. Imagine a lightweight material able to propel a turbine within a generator as the energy is released? That could be a safer and more practical alternative to nuclear radiation. We would only need a method of storing the material in cells and releasing the material in a controlled fashion.

What about all the other options. While superconductivity is sexy, can this process be effectively applied to other materials? Could it be done on a large scale? Can this be a theoretical alternative method to producing nearly perfect structures as opposed to carbon nanotubes? Could we get the benefits of a perfect structure but on a larger scale? Could we find a way to push particles of other materials through a compression chamber of this sort to produce wires that are less volatile?

I would imagine that the scientists involved with this project have though in many of these same directions. They have likely thought in more. But I believe that at this point of their research, they need to learn more about the structure of the material they have created and hopefully identify better solutions to contain the compressed energy.

Comment Re:implying incompetence ? (Score 4, Insightful) 225

We live in a society where companies like Diesel who run major fashion lines and advertising campaigns to glorify stupid. In all fairness, Diesel was trying to suggest that one shouldn't always take the "smart and sensible path", but people wore shirts saying "Smart is ok, but stupid is fun". The people wearing that clothing seemed to believe that doing the stupid thing could be far more productive and constructive than having and idea and properly planning and executing it in a constructive manor.

We had a president who for 8 years told the American people that even as the son of one of the most powerful men in the world (Director of Central Intelligence or VP of the US as the time) was a C+ student... meaning that his professors, knowing there would be a call from one of the most powerful men on earth if they failed his son, gave him the lowest possible grade they thought they could get away with... in a business school. Now mind you, I really really like GWB, I think he is one of the nicest people on earth, a man with the absolute best intentions with a heart as pure as laboratory diamonds. Sadly, he's dumb as a brick and has absolutely no capacity for understanding the consequences of his decisions.

When presented with the choice of Al Gore who is only mildly more intelligent but at least as far as politicians are concerned is a mental giant or GWB, the American people felt they associated much better with GWB. Even though Al Gore would likely make decisions to improve the lives of all people and would do his absolute best to represent the emotional, spiritual, etc... interests of all Americans, he came off as too smart and too nerdy (and too much of a know it all) and the people sided with the C+ flunky who had a good heart and spoke to the people in a way that they could relate to. I don't believe that was a calculated action by GWB as I believe calculation of any type is not his strength. I believe his sheer dumbness allowed people to better love and identify with him. I feel terrible that now that I know more about him that I said so many bad things about him while he was in office. It was like picking on the slow kid at school who couldn't defend himself because he didn't even understand the insults. He might be one of the best people on earth at heart and as a representative of the vast majority of the American people, he was spectacular. Too bad he was also expected to provide leadership, manage money and a military a role he was clearly no suited for. This is a very strong case for separating the presidency into president and prime minister.

We also live in a society which glorifies hate and violence. We believe a child who dresses up in camouflage pajamas and spends 8 weeks in basic training should be called a hero for stepping up to protect the American way. Without having the slightest idea of what the American way is other than to dress up in said pajamas, he/she is placed in a position of ultimate judgement. He/she is expected to make conscientious decisions whether to take the life of a mother, a father, a son or a daughter. He is expected with no more experience than that of a child to represent the American people at the end of a gun and make judgement calls that have overwhelming impact on society as we know it. We call these children heroes and we praise them in media, advertisements and more. People forfeit business class and first class seats in support of their sacrifices for freedom.

Consider that that child, fresh out of high school will make $18,802.80 a year as a private and can easily escalate to $22,165.20 by doing their jobs with some level of diligence within a year. Also consider they are provided with excellent quality (though questionable tasting) food, excellent medical care, excellent dental benefits, clothing, housing, career education, transportation and college aid. Their quality of life and standard of living when not at war is approximately equal to a $60,000 a year job at the age of 18 with absolutely no education other than a Basic and AIT provided entirely by the military during which time they are being paid. Given the massive number of positions available for these children that are non-combative, this is the absolute best career path with the absolute best options available in America today. And we celebrate them as heroes for making so many sacrifices for their country.

We do not make heroes out of people who devote 12 years in a university who lose endless nights of sleep and develop mental health conditions because they lack the ability to shut their minds off. We don't celebrate people who spend 10,000 hours developing their minds into works of art capable of consuming, digesting and acting upon data sets consisting of a plethora of complex variables. We don't idolize people who find ways of creating an environment capable of compressing helium to metallic solidity requiring so much force that it s greater than pressures found at the core of the earth.

We mock them.

Even we the nerds mock them.

We see what they've done and do we welcome articles that announce their immense achievements to the world? We read the words of a reporter who clearly is a fool attempting to aggrandize something he clearly doesn't understand to people who are likely able to provide the investments required to repeat the experiment in terms they may understand. Yet that fool sees that it's important to inform the people of these accomplishments and to tell the world that it's necessary to help these researchers. We mock the article. We mock the news. We mock the scientists who created a pressurized environment that achieved such a masterful work of art.

When I read the original article, I was quite busy and didn't have time to investigate it further and eventually forgot it as it's not my particular field of expertise. Reading this follow up article, instead of focusing on the failure, it triggered my mind to be fascinated by the fact that they were able to keep such a massive amount of pressure stable for as long as they did. I started picturing methods of creating such pressure and realized that my understanding of Newton's laws of thermodynamics and motion seem to be contrary to such an achievement. I immediately thought "If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, how would one create such pressure without some sort of stable force to restrict the opposite reaction from going the wrong way?" I considered it would require some sort of vise. I wondered however what kind of material could possibly be strong enough to withstand such pressure. I considered a vise made of laboratory diamond and then wondered how one would make such a mechanism to apply force to the diamond to compress it. Then I saw some comments about lasers being somehow involved and immediately wondered how lasers could be used to create such pressure. Could one make a containment area of a substance like diamond and then apply heat the gasses to increase pressure? Even so, how would one power such a laser in a stable environment for long enough to create ever increasing heat along a temperature gradient so that it would not end in combustion.

I still have absolutely no idea how such a monumental achievement was made but am fascinated by it and am grateful someone dedicated so much of their lives to no only accomplishing this, but also to kissing the butts and doing to boring stuff to get the grants and organize the labs etc...

I am with you. I'm generally one of the people who come here looking for an excuse to flame a bit. That is what Slashdot appears to be for today. But I truly appreciate you standing on a soap box and making the point that sometimes we should expect more from ourselves.

Comment Re:No, SLS Is Going to Be Moth-Balled (Score 1) 303

To be honest, NASA is bloody brilliant and should never be denounced for their awesomeness, I agree wholeheartedly that Apollo would have never happened without NASA. That said, there are endless projects that could never have happened without them. The amount of science and tech they feedback is incredible.

Now... SLS is a project which has dumped billions into the American economy and has been a major component of helping the US recover from the DotCom Boom and later financial distastes of this century. Companies like Lockheed, Boeing and others provide a great service as money launderers for congress trying to stimulate the economy in different regions. They however are bureaucratic cesspools of filth and decay that fail at 9 out of every 10 projects announced since many of those projects really were intended to do nothing more than just feed money into the economy.

SLS would have never happened if it weren't for private space.

How many failed space projects have there been since the original Space Shuttle?

How many years did we fly the Space Shuttle and perpetuate the life of the Space Shuttle before we finally decided we had to move on and finally make something more?

This is because the ULA guys and Boeing never actually needed to complete a project in order to get more money for not completing it. It is too much work to bid on and negotiate for a new space launch vehicle. So, it's better to drag each one out as long as possible milking the government for more funding. NASA has been crippled by the government contractors. What's more is that Boeing and ULA are just so damn big, there was no other companies that could meet the minimum requirements to bid on these contracts, so NASA couldn't even pack up and go somewhere else.

Enter SpaceX and others.

SpaceX has now consistently delivered on inexpensive flights, advancing technology, even making space interesting again. They are a company that survives on launch contracts and while they take funding and government money, as far as I can tell, in the entire lifetime of the company, they haven't taken even as much as just this one SLS contract.

Does this mean that SpaceX is better than government? Nope... but here's the thing, if ULA or Boeing doesn't deliver on space projects now, the government can ask SpaceX or BlueOrigin (who seems to be working with ULA surprisingly enough). This has changed the entire dynamic of the space program. It meant that the NASA, after over 40 years of what generally has always felt like corruption can actually expect their contractors to deliver.

It is also very likely that Boeing and ULA companies may actually save their reputations and do better in business because private space is forcing them to actually be better than they were. Just imagine what would happen if Musk or Bezos got into commercial passenger aircraft and decided to compete with the 787 for example. Planes would cost a tenth as much and be designed to have lower cost of ownership.

These companies have been cornerstones of American accomplishment but when the politicians found out that they could use these companies to stimulate the economy, they started looking for projects to dump money into no matter what the outcome. It was altruistic, but it established a precedent that said "You don't actually have to build anything, just make jobs". And for nearly 30 years, that's what they did.

The design of the SLS, while FRIGGING AWESOME!!!! is just too expensive and placed absolutely no focus on practicality. My guess is a room of NASA scientists and engineers looking at the design and shaking there heads and thinking "This is what we get for that much money?". The entire rocket is probably heavily based on the idea of "If you want something good, we can go back to the drawing board for 10 years, this one we can deliver now".

I loved and adored the Space Shuttle. As a small child when it was being built, I slept snuggling on a stuffed space shuttle doll. There are so many things that made the Space Shuttle awesome and I am sad to know that the space plane concept is dead for now... maybe for the rest of my life. But, can you honestly tell me that the Space Shuttle program was done well by the government?

The Space Shuttle flew 135 missions from 1981 to 2011 with what seems to be an average cost per launch of about $800 million. Are you telling me that with a budget of approximately $1 trillion USD, they couldn't have redesigned the blast shield so that it wouldn't require each and every tile to be removed and inspected one by one by human eyes for each flight? They couldn't have designed more efficient boosters on more efficient fuels? They couldn't have upgraded the computers to more modern technology? How about the Endeavour built for first launch in 1992? They couldn't have made major technical improvements on the design?

Come on... yes, the government and the crooks at Lockheed, Boeing and others got it done, and damn was the space shuttle awesome, but the technology completely stalled for decades because the government and those crooks were as fast and agile as drunk snails in a salt patch. With Lockheed and Boeing bureaucrats involved, it was a miracle we ever launched the Space Shuttle at all.

SLS is a whole different scale from Falcon 9 Heavy, but in most cases, being able to launch more isn't that important. What's more important is being able to launch more reliably. SLS is not a reusable platform. It is excessively expensive. It is possible to launch dozens of alternative smaller rockets for what just one of these cost. But to be honest, for what that thing cost, I would have much rather seen a new space station capable of hosting in-space assembly and deployment of projects like space only vehicles.

Comment Re:Holocaust 2.0 (Score 2) 140

Let me respond... as an actual, real life, genuine, pure-blooded... recovering Jew... I can't tell whether I should take offense to this or laugh my ass off at it.

Please tell me that you have some Jewish in your blood line... 1/64th on your sister-in-law's mother's side is good enough. Unless you happen to be either a Jew, Gypsy, or.. well a plastic toy doll that sends everything children say to American servers for logging, it's just outright offensive that you would make such a comparison.

Also, I fear the lash-back that will come from the Dollocaust deniers.

P.S. - Recovering from Judaism is similar to recovering from alcohol addiction or Catholicism. Once you're in, you're in. There's nothing you can do which makes you any less Jewish culturally, you can deny it, you can fight it, but as soon as there's latkas and draydels and nagging old ladies gumming their lips peddling out guilt, it's all over.

Comment Re:Mickey Maus (Score 2) 363

As a father, I've had the displeasure of having PewDiePie as a regular member of my house. For example, me, ny son, my daughter and my niece were walking in Manhattan, which is in itself unlikely to happen as they live in Florida and we live in Norway. But we were on vacation with one another and my son and I were joking with each other and I said "You suck" and the two girls who see each other every second or third year simultaneously say "You swallow" which horrified me but apparently was a great bonding experience for the girls who immediately giggled, compared notes and came to the realization they're both primarily educated by PewDiePie.

I have been horrified and offended by PewDiePie before. Let me also say that as a recovering Jew, I lived growing up surrounded by family who were escapees, survivors, etc... of the holocaust. What I found is simple, if a Jew were to do something as stupid as what PewDiePie did, it would be distasteful irony, if anyone else did, it would be antisemitic.

Now, the Germans didn't systematically destroy 6 millions Jews and Gypsies and Black people. They systematically destroyed 6 million Jews, 5 million Gypsies and I have no idea about the black people, by I'd imagine the number would be horrifying as well. If you're going to be an SJW, you have to try and be at least a little close to right.

Let's settle some things... was Hitler anti-Jew (Antisemitic requires that the person is a semite. I challenge any European Jew to prove they are actually a semite), yes he was. Was he trying to eliminate Jews, by his own words and hand, he was. But only a filthy and disgusting person would call the holocaust the "Jewish Holocaust" because he was a pretty equal opportunity hater. He wanted to kill everyone that was easy to target. Jews, Gypsies and Blacks all have something in common, they are easy to find, they are clearly different than other people (at least visually) and it's really easy to convince massive numbers of people they are the cause of their problems.

Wanna see something horrifying, look at how easily Trump is manipulating people to get his "Great Wall of Trump" build so he'll accomplish immortality. He is using the same sort of gifts and rhetoric that Hitler used. He'll give anyone anything they want so long as they let him build that wall. He'll tell us all "we're better than those dark skinned Mohammad lovers are... they're trying to kill us.. those Mexicans want to take your jobs, your homes and your daughters, let me build that wall!!!!"

Now, here's the thing... PewDiePie is a moron. He has made himself rich and famous by being a one man Jack-Ass Online show. His audience is a massive number of young and impressionable children and what has he now taught them? He taught them that it's a sick world where people would be willing to hold such horrible signs for $5. He showed that people would be willing to sell their souls for $5.

It's disgusting in my opinion that children should learn something so terrible at such a young age. What he did taught first world children about how bad life is for some people that $5 is the price of their conscience. He showed that people could be easily bought or manipulated for almost nothing. I'm 100% sure that the people holding those signs didn't believe in them, I am also pretty sure that the guy in Sri Lanka was more concerned about how long he could live on that $5. I don't think he knows or cares about who Hitler was. But I also know that he can be bought for $5.

Dude, I think what he did was a service. I think that out of all the stupid shit he's said and done, he's actually done something right for once. I think he demonstrated outright how easy it is to convince people "Hitler Good, Jew Bad". He showed that a person in that type of position will go where he/she believes the food is. It takes very very little to convince people to dispose of the last good thing left in their hearts when there's nothing left in their stomachs.

What could you ask a man/women do for $10 or a promise of $5 a day. What if you established a trust fund for their child that paid $5 a day for 40 years, could you convince someone to commit suicide on camera? What would it cost to make one of those people hurt or kill someone? If I offered them $5 a day, would they hurt a friend or someone they loved?

Could I, with a full PayPal account start a war? Could I cause a general assembly in a square in a non-first world country to protest or start a riot? Could I buy an Anti-Trump rally? Could I buy an Anti-Muslim rally in a country where people are put to death for these things? If I could buy an hour of time from 5,000 people to gather in one place, what could I make them do for their $5. Could I force them to listen? Could a teach them to hate? Could I rouse them to fight?

Of course getting 5,000 people in a place like Jakarta for example would be impossible right? What if one day I paid all the people in the city to carry signs advertising fiver "Easiest $5 you ever made". Could I do horrible things?

PewDiePie's disgusting behavior should be lauded this time. He helped identify something horrible. Fiver and its peers can be the grounds for the rise of the next Hitler. A single stolen credit card number and some creativity could be enough to start revolutions.

So get off your high horse and use the gray lump between your ears to better understand what we have seen. If the Jews (my family) would have used the gray shit between their ears, they probably could have stopped the holocaust before it started. Instead they behaved all huffy and pissy like you. If you believe what he did wasn't a joke, fine. i agree. It was not a joke, but in the spirit which it was done, we learned something very important and if you're gonna be a SJW, then at least stop being a f-ing stupid one!

Comment Re:Trade union fighting for survival (Score 1) 722

I think that this is a very short sighted opinion on their behalf. First of all, we're all facing a market where there will be too many people and too few jobs. In a circumstance like that, we need to be prepared with and organized method of supporting the people while trying to identify alternative sources of jobs.

In America, they faced this problem and GWB and Obama provided a work solution where instead of reeducating people and producing real jobs, they employed 3 million American's directly in military (over a million), the TSA (over 1.2 million) and the DHS and other agencies. In addition, they employed many more indirectly since for every employee you employ, a series of support employees will be needed. They paid their employees large enough sums to redistribute the wealth a few levels and create many Walmart and McDonalds jobs. In addition, the government took on the burden of covering a substantial portion of employee salaries for large job makers. For example, Walmart pays minimum wage but provides support to their employees to help them register for government benefits such as welfare and food stamps... all while Walmart pays dividends roughly equal to what the government is paying to support their employees.

The truth is, America has proven what happens when you have a very large unskilled workforce with very little education. But they decided that instead of basic income which could provide these people the opportunity to study and improve themselves, they would instead give them jobs which would be better than just having people laying around doing nothing. Instead, now they stand around doing nothing while wearing uniforms. A very large part of the money the TSA and DHS consumes can be recovered by taxing people using the airports and immigration systems. Currently, over 70% of the cost of a coach plane ticket to the U.S. is to cover TSA and DHS USCIS fees.

Finland is trying an alternative method. Instead of dooming people to an existence of nothingness where their only value to the world is to wear a uniform that makes you look like a prison inmate at airports, they are trying to see if they can motivate people to do more than just keep a sofa from floating away by providing enough money to scrape by on to the truly unambitious while hoping the people will use it as an opportunity to do something more.

Many of the people could use this opportunity to start "work from home" businesses or can afford to help someone else start a company doing something. As a programmer, I would welcome a government stipend that would support me and my family long enough to develop a product that would take 2-3 years to make but wouldn't ever be made if I had to earn money to feed myself while doing it. I could make far better products if I wasn't desperate to meet certain deadlines like "mortgage must be paid".

There's also the issue that I on average pay about 12 times as much tax as the average person. I actually pay about 6 full middle class salaries worth of tax each year. I would like some of that money to be paid to intelligent and creative people who want to start businesses but can't because they can't feed themselves while they're getting started.

This program is just an alternative to what the American's did. GWB and Obama on behalf of America chose to implement a form of communism (almost Soviet style) to solve the problem of too many people and not enough jobs. They made a lot of shit jobs for stupid people and locked them into them by paying them more than they were worth and guaranteeing they couldn't leave as no one would pay them as much.

Finland is hoping that instead of ruining their population by beating them down into a greater depth of stupidity, they can provide them the means to have an opportunity to be creative and hopefully create new business that wouldn't be as easily susceptible to being replaced by outsourcing or automation. That could be more services, it could be more careers related to arts or vanity. There are endless opportunities, but without a secure basic income permitting these people to try these things out without the risks, they will never come to fruition.

What is missing from what I can see is a clear means of helping those people realize their potential. They should offer some of the more creative ones career opportunities to motivate people and push them to be creative.

Comment Re:Very Encouraging (Score 1) 113

It seems that most people on slashdot like to talk about things they speculate on as though they are authorities on the topic.

Insurance companies are in business to make money.

If people chose one insurance company over another because of price and restrictions, the rules of the first company will adapt to attract new customers.

Insurance companies almost certainly will try to find a way to profit more from self-driving cars but when there's more profit to be made, one company will offer better terms than another causing the other to respond in kind. Eventually, once the terms leave both companies relatively profitable, the consumer will likely have pretty good terms in the contract and no reason to move to someone else.

I've now read like 10 articles and 1000 comments this morning and it seems to me that everyone is an expert on everything and most of us just simply talk utter nonsense without thinking at all about what we're saying.

As for this topic, let's just assume for now that insurance will be expensive to start with and will come down quickly because their customers can just leave them.

Comment Re:Very Encouraging (Score 2) 113

I have driven in many European cities and I think the point you're missing is related to the attitude behind the driving.

Mediterranean bordering countries are a special exception to... well every rule ever made. Ask them, they believe it too.

If you're talking about Amsterdam, self driving cars will never work, but I give it less than 5 years before cars are simply illegal within the main city. They just passed that rule in Oslo, Norway. After June, it will be illegal to drive within the inside ring of the city except for deliveries. If you consider someplace like Enschede or Tilburg, it will work perfectly. This has to do with organized management of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. You'll also see more effort placed on providing pedestrian tunnels for crossing main roads which has been very successful for safety in many places. Of course that's really not an option in Amsterdam.

It won't work anywhere in France or Italy. These are countries where you drive like a frigging mad man and ram yourself into traffic and just pray you make it. I am still shaking in fear 5 years later from the last time I drove in Paris. I have never encountered more mean spirited drivers anywhere in the world. I honestly think the drivers in Paris believe that they are on earth purely to punish each other.

I think Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, well... pretty much anywhere you have civilized people, self-driving cars will be faster than human driven ones... especially when they consider queue management and we can merge lanes at 70km/h instead of 1km/h. Also when the cars have proper traffic information and can make better choices for driving and directions. Traffic lights can talk with cars and change based on actual queue information.

It's not about just the immediate area surrounding the car, it's about the overall traffic environment. Queue management functions substantially better when viewed as a big picture than if every car manages itself.

Comment Re:such a tiny number (Score 1) 113


First of all, I like that Ford decided to do this outside of their company. Ford has always been piss-poor at technology. I've rented many of their "better cars" and have been horrified by how poorly they work from a technical aspect. Even the door locks always feel like the "budget model". Every time they try to build technology in-house they fail. For example, when they used Microsoft's car system for the stereo and then made it impossible to update the software without bringing it to the factory. As a result, they released a version and thought "wow, that's shipped... next product" and when bug reports came in, they were confused... actually outright clueless.

Ford can make engines and gears and seats. They sure as hell can't build computers. Need proof, show me a Ford which has an ignition computer which isn't utterly stupid. I actually found myself in a Mustang pulling to the side of the highway, shutting off the car, locking the doors and unlocking and starting it again to reboot computers. They can manufacture big metal things. As for making new technology ... NO!!!!

As such, as you said, Ford has to think about what to do in case self-driving happens and then we start getting rules which say "No human driven cars on main roads" which I personally will contribute to the lobbying effort for. I want human drivers off the roads I use ASAP. Driving sucks and it's mostly because of "good drivers". So, if self-driving cars work and even become mandatory, Ford needs a solution and they know they can't possibly do it themselves. So, throw a bunch of money at some people who can do it and then give them the cars they should do it in.

Comment Re:Uber is dead (Score 1) 113

Companies will also try to increase their business. If you don't have to pay the driver, you can afford to decrease the rates you charge for the car.

Marking up a car as much as you can is "within what the market will bare". If your goal is to be more profitable, you will exploit all avenues. You can't be someone smart enough to build a self driving car taxi company and then be so dumb as to shoot yourself in the foot by pricing yourself out of the range of what customers will pay.

Comment Re:Uber is dead (Score 1) 113

In my experience, if you can afford to buy more expensive cars (you have good credit) then you can have a car which is pretty reliable and relatively low cost to maintain. In addition, you can maintain a relatively high resell price which means that often it costs less to drive an expensive car than a cheap one over a period of 4 years. That is of course if you maintain that car properly. If you simply drive cars into the ground, the cheaper car is probably... well cheaper.

So that said, if I could pay a self driving car to pick me up at around 6:30 and drive me to the nearby train station, then pick me up from the same train station around 17:00 and drive me home, I would gladly stop driving my own car. I pay about $1000 a month to drive, that includes car payments, the occasional cost of using a fast charger, parking, etc... when I consider resell value, I can adjust that to about $600 a month. If I could get driven 7km each day for about $10 a day, I would pay about $200 a month for the car and about $100 a month for the train. If there are 3 other people in the car also paying $10 a day which is extremely likely and the car is used for more trips which is also likely, that's car could likely generate $200 a day revenue. For 20 days a month on average, that would be about $4,000 per car per day. Consider car payments, insurance and charging to consume about half that. If I owned five of those cars, I would generate a mediocre income on top of my normal income.

PS, I drive new cars because of things like EU control. If you own a new electric car, it cost almost nothing compared even to a gas car you got for free but is out of warranty. Consider the insanely high gas prices as well. Used electric cars are stupid because after 4 years, you might as well just toss the batteries.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.