rkbabang

Honda's CVT's haven't been around long enough to really know. People with very high milage Honda's had normal standard or automatic transmissions. "CVT transmissions will first debut in the 2013 Honda Accord" http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/02/honda-to-make-switch-to-cvts-in-a-big-way.html

How much will you spend maintenance over the same time? And fuel does make a difference. The average driver will spend $2400 a year in fuel and the AAA estimates the average maintenance cost is 6 cents per mile. Over 10 years assuming average driving habit that's an additional $36k, $24k on fuel alone. The model 3 is estimated to be $35k. Lets assume he's off on this like he was on the model S for argument sake and say $40k. Typically the government rebate is about $8k from what I've read. So we're at $32k for a model 3. I've read multiple articles from Tesla owners (maybe Eric can confirm) who have said the only maintenance is tires. Which is a wash since every car needs them. Even the battery is under warranty for 8 years as per the Tesla website. But I'll also say we don't really know much about maintenance past 5 years since the car is so new. I have two concerns with the model 3. One is that the longevity of it will be unknown. Will it last 10 years and a quarter of a million miles? And 2: When will the batteries need to be replaced and how much will it cost? At first glance the $35K looks like it could workout in the Model 3's favor, but the answer to those 2 questions above could change things considerably. Also the Model 3 isn't available yet. Take my Corolla, I paid $13K, drove it for 253K miles. I changed the tires/breaks a few times. I only do oil changes about twice per year, which is over 10K miles in between changes. I did the timing belt on that once at 175K miles and I gave it one tune up also at 175K miles. That is it. My cost of maintenance was way, way, way below 6cents/mile. Timing belt and tune up for that little car was under $1000 Tires/breaks twice lets call it $1500 $60 year for oil changes (I did them myself most of the time, but for this purpose I'll suppose paying $30/oil change) = $660 Total maintenance $3160 or 1.25cents/mile. My Hyundai has only been 9 years, but has cost me similar to my Corolla so far. People who are used to driving American or German made cars really do not understand how much cheaper an Asian car is to maintain.

Used Chevrolet Volt with lower fuel cost than a Elantra: https://www.carsforsale.com/chevrolet-volt-for-sale-C999103 To be fair though you'd have to compare it to a similarly used Elantra, which are cheaper. Also I'm not convinced you can get 200-250K miles on a Volt without the major expense of replacing the batteries. If you buy one that already has 25-60k miles on it you'd probably be much better off with a gas car if you plan on driving it for 10 years. My Corolla was 11 years old and had 253K miles on it when I traded it in for my Hyundai. It still looked and ran great and I never had anything major go on it. I was just getting concerned about the amount of rust I could see underneath it and after 11 years I was ready for something new. I'm not sure you are going to hear people say things like that about a Volt. Anyway, I wouldn't risk it.

+1 for biking. I wish I lived close enough to work to bike. Excellent option for the health benefits alone. But it isn't practical all the time (It is 12°F where I am right now) And snows all winter long. Even if I lived in biking distance to work it would only be practical for 6-7 months out of the year, so I would still need a car. Even if you lived in a more agreeable climate and biked to work everyday you would probably still need to own a car to pick up groceries and for other things. There are only a limited number of places you can live car-free in the US.

You guys spend a lot on cars. Let's see how many years I can drive for the same price you spend on one tesla. 2007: I paid $15K will drive it at least until 2017 (maybe longer): 2007-2017 $15K 2017: An Elantra is now about $18K: 2007-2027 $33K 2027: Probably about $20K now: 2007-2037 $53K 2037: $22K for new Hyundai: 2007-2047 $75K So I get 40+ years of driving for the price of one Tesla or 20+ years of driving for the price of one $33K sedan or Chevy volt. I know there is gas savings to be had, but it won't make up that much of the difference. EDIT: If I add in the Corolla I had before the Hyundai it looks even better: 1996: $13K For the Corolla. 1996-2047 $88K for 51 years of driving.

I bought a Hyundai Elantra in 2007, $15K brand new. It gets about 35 mpg (advertised as 38hwy, but I've never gotten 38). I've got over 170k miles on it now and the only things I've ever done to it are the tires, breaks, oil changes twice per year, a tune up once and the timing belt once. It has been great. I had a Corrolla before this which was also a great car, but the Ellantra is bigger, about half way between compact and midsize, and has more power better acceleration, and it is cheaper than the Toyota. It's 9 years old now and I don't plan on replacing it any time soon.

Short Musk video from September

Learn to read. Besides the biggest leap in improving the human race is the move from Anarchy to government(Democracy/Monarchy/etc). "learn to read" really? Does your mom know you are using the computer? Human technological progress has been expanding at an exponential rate ever since the first protohuman picked up the first stone. At some point agriculture was the next step in our progress, this had the effect of planting previously mobile human groups in one place, allowing more free time and the accumulation of more wealth than one can carry on his person. This also had a side effect of attracting parasites which we have been fighting for thousands of years now. Merry Christmas.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity. I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen. Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 1. If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money. The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp. The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 2. We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government. Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station. Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer? Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.) 3. If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive. However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them. If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc). If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions. The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place. Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC. But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. Just to clear up a few things. 1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen. If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen. When you take money from someone against their will that is theft. Always. 2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it. It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet. Money is always put to its most useful current purpose. What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing. If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one. 3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so. The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it. Go back thousands of years in the history of civilization Indian/Chinese/Egyptian/Roman anywhere you go it has been the Kings/Pharaohs/Government who have built the infrastructure and pushed the development of technology. They have done it through taxes. You are deluded if you think that private enterprise would have achieved anything without government infrastructure and help. The private economy doesn't put money to the best use. It puts money to the most greedy and selfish use. Private enterprise cant see beyond their current lifetime (if that long). Elon Musk is just ok. Hes a businessman and leader but theres nothing special about what he is working on. Hes just retooling/refining/improving technologies that already exist, similar to what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Hes not doing anything innovative. The innovation and research takes place at NASA. In a few decades the "private economy" will takes the successful research of NASA and speak about how they can do it better. Now if Elon Musk was working on something like the IXS Enterprise id say he was doing something innovative. No private money will be put for this until the science is confirmed and the technology is developed because till that happens there is no money. Then the greedy "private economy" will take over. http://100yss.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXS_Enterprise http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html All I can say is that you have, without exception, the most warped view of history that I have ever read. Just, wow. All innovations come from kings, emperors, dictators and bureaucrats? I'm sorry but that is just nuts.

Space elevators are probably a non-starter, neat idea though. You'd have "anchor" it in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) while low earth orbit is quite a bit closer for example the ISS is at about 250 miles. You can't exactly ride the elevator up to the LEO floor and hop off either since you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit. If I were forced to bet on our next path to orbit after chemical rockets it would be a very long coil "gun" up the side of a mountain at the equator. Chemical rockets will probably still be our only ticket off this rock for the next couple decades though which is why getting their cost down is such a monumental achievement. With current technology you are correct a space elevator is not possible. I think you will see one in your lifetime however. The rail gun method will only work for cargo, never for humans. The acceleration would kill you.

The horse wasn't the ultimate means of human ground transportation and neither is the modern automobile. You do what makes sense with the technology you have.

The Space Shuttle was about propaganda value and looking futuristic on TV. It was more expensive than regular rockets and carried less. Whereas Spacex is trying to be cost effective and even profitable. You could easily spend a million dollars to build a robotic vacuum cleaner that looked like the maid from the Jetsons pushing a vacuum. But is it really progress if a Roomba is many times cheaper and cleans better? That is the difference between government and private.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity. I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen. Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 1. If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money. The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp. The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 2. We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government. Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station. Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer? Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.) 3. If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive. However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them. If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc). If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions. The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place. Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC. But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. Just to clear up a few things. 1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen. If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen. When you take money from someone against their will that is theft. Always. 2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it. It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet. Money is always put to its most useful current purpose. What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing. If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one. 3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so. The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. Absolutely! These are exciting times. And don't get me wrong, I hope Blue Origin does become a real company competing for and completing space missions. It just isn't there yet.

I like this explanation to an extent. However, even level-headed voters don't really have the option of picking candidates issue by issue. In our two party system you're forced to pick a side if you want to participate, even if you only agree with your side on 50.0001% of issues. An extension of this is how our debates center around individual leaders and their character (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on the merits of policy in regards to current issues, you're electing the individual and their stance on things is something in the background we're vaguely aware of. Once you support a candidate you are seen as supporting their position on all issues, there is no room for nuanced stances. It's funny how the author of that quote seems to portray humans as having passed this point in our history though. While you might not be killed or imprisoned, there are still massive rewards for being on the winning side, why else would businesses give so much to political campaigns. There are rewards available for businesses with the cash to buy influence, but none available to voters. As a business spending money to lobby the government you can get regulations passed which will inhibit smaller businesses from entering the market and cementing your market leading position. You can patent a process and make any competing process illegal, etc.. There are a million ways you can use chrony capitalism to your advantage if you are one of the players in the system. As a voter, however, it doesn't really matter who wins the next election or the one after that. The election process is a distraction to keep you placated and blind to how the system really works. Frank Zappa said that "Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex." There is a lot of truth in that statement.

I was under impression that the Clinton running for president was a she, but I could be mistaken, it isn't always easy to tell.

No more attractive than Trump, IMHO.

I watched it with my son who just finished reading my copy of the Musk biography a week ago. Wow, I must have missed where Blue Origin put 11 satellites into orbit while returning the 1st stage to Earth. I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

I think there should be a debate. I can think of many arguments against any minimum wage. America is not a democracy and it never ever was supposed to be. The Founding Fathers thought democracy was a horrible system and they were right. The fact that economic elites have disproportionate impact on the political system is in my view an extremely good thing and also exactly the way the system was designed to function. I never understand why people are interested in populist democracy. Theoretically democracy doesn't work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem. In the most ideal settings (voters are very interesting in issues, spend enormous time debating) it doesn't work http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/showbiz-tonight-flashpoint-is-american-idol%E2%80%99s-voting-system-flawed/ Historically it has never worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism_of_the_democracy And presently its a disaster ex. India, Venezuela. The hilarious thing to me about all of this is that the whole reason democracy even has a good name today is because of the success of the United States. You shouldn't be criticizing the US for not being democratic enough. You aught to be criticizing democracy for not being US-like enough. While I disagree with you about the US system being "pretty good", I do agree with you 100% in that a true democracy would be much worse. What makes the US system so bad is how much power is currently concentrated in the federal government. Regardless of the details about how it operates a better system would be so powerless that no one would bother trying to buy influence. At the start of the republic, Washington and Hamilton had to acquire enough power for the executive branch to insure the republic would survive. Jefferson and Madison were opposed to, and strongly fought Washington's and Hamilton's efforts to increase power in the Executive branch. But as presidents, neither Jefferson or Madison relinquished any of the power in the executive branch! Yes, exactly the case. I'm sure if you made me president, I'd abuse my power as well.

I think there should be a debate. I can think of many arguments against any minimum wage. America is not a democracy and it never ever was supposed to be. The Founding Fathers thought democracy was a horrible system and they were right. The fact that economic elites have disproportionate impact on the political system is in my view an extremely good thing and also exactly the way the system was designed to function. I never understand why people are interested in populist democracy. Theoretically democracy doesn't work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem. In the most ideal settings (voters are very interesting in issues, spend enormous time debating) it doesn't work http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/showbiz-tonight-flashpoint-is-american-idol%E2%80%99s-voting-system-flawed/ Historically it has never worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism_of_the_democracy And presently its a disaster ex. India, Venezuela. The hilarious thing to me about all of this is that the whole reason democracy even has a good name today is because of the success of the United States. You shouldn't be criticizing the US for not being democratic enough. You aught to be criticizing democracy for not being US-like enough. While I disagree with you about the US system being "pretty good", I do agree with you 100% in that a true democracy would be much worse. What makes the US system so bad is how much power is currently concentrated in the federal government. Regardless of the details about how it operates a better system would be so powerless that no one would bother trying to buy influence.

I didn't realize that. Yes, I live and drive in NH and heat with oil. The large drop in oil prices is very obvious to everyone around here. Home heating oil: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_SNH_DPG&f=W Gas: http://www.newhampshiregasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewHampshire&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

Doesn't everyone have a pretty good idea of how much oil prices have dropped? You see gas stations everywhere with huge signs showing the gas prices wherever you go. Anyone who heats with home heating oil knows as well.

In my previous company, which I worked for 16 years, I had a bunch of certificates that they had issued to me. For some reason when they gave me stock they issued physical certificates rather than depositing them in an account. It got to the point that I had a significant amount in a lock box in my house. I started thinking that I wouldn't want to have that much cash in my house or that amount of value in physical gold in my house, why do I keep these things lying around? I ended up depositing them all in my Fidelity account. I'm not sure what the advantages of physically having them are, they could get lost, stolen, water damaged, burned in a fire, etc...

I've been there at least twice since the first e coli story hit the news. Both times it was crowded and I had to wait in a line that backed almost to the door.