backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Jul 7 at 3:04 PM


Tesla Roadster 2.5  (Source: Tesla Motors)
Extended production sales leads to the electric sports car's makeover

The Tesla Roadster is receiving its fourth major production update with the new Roadster 2.5, a revised version of the electric sports car with a new grille and rear bumper.

The 2011 Tesla Roadster 2.5 received an updated grille that resembles the design of the Model S as well as a new rear bumper with a diffuser element. Other cosmetic changes include more comfortable seats, improved surface finishes and an optional seven inch touchscreen display that includes a backup camera. So far, there are no powertrain changes to the vehicle.

Earlier this year, Tesla planned to stop production of the Roadster and announced in a Form S-1 filing of its preliminary prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company would replace the Roadster with a new model that would be introduced in 2013 at the very soonest. 

But in March of this year, the auto company said they negotiated further with key suppliers and felt they could increase the Roadster's production by 40 percent, extending sales into 2012. Undoubtedly, Tesla's recent success with their initial public offering, which helped the automaker earn over US $226 million from share purchases, has put the company in a better financial place and is helping them stay on track with the 2012 goal. 

Originally, the shares were expected to sell for $14-$16 a piece, but ended up selling for $17. In addition, there was an increase in the number of shares sold. Tesla planned to release 11.1 million shares, but released 13.3 million shares instead, and at a higher cost, which makes this a triumphant success for the auto company. Though, only 17 percent of shares have been sold to the public.

Tesla stocks are now over $21.50 a share, and Tesla is valued at US $1.33 billion. With the IPO's help in bringing Tesla out of a financial crisis, the company's production plan consists of releasing the Roadster 2.5 in 2011 and the Model S in 2012. In addition, the automaker has opened two new Tesla stores in Newport Beach, California and Copenhagen, Denmark. 

No prices on the Roadster 2.5 have been released yet, but the vehicle is available for order and will appear in Tesla stores everywhere "soon."








Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Government subsidies
By knutjb on 7/3/2010 2:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you really say that its that bad to not have a choice if you are given a logically fair deal that works as it is supposed to? What would you rather be able to choose? Think of how much time and effort and money could be spent on other things that should be more important than the name of your college or what health insurance carrier you have? If the end result is the same then who cares?
Ok who is choosing for me? Do they really have my best interest? Then you throw in time, effort, and money. This is the slippery slope. Most people are rather benign until you tell them they can't ... When you give up some freedom for whatever do you ever get it back? Sadly no.
quote:
People in the US complain constantly about paying too much in taxes and fight every increase everywhere, but are not willing to pick up the bill for this stuff on their own.
1. We do pay too much in taxes.
2. What bill are you saying we don't want to pick up? We fund more of everything in the world than any other country.
quote:
And if having an open market is always the best choice then why can you go to many other countries and receive the same level of health care by doctors who studied in the US in a better furnished hospital with more comforts and more room and a much longer recovery stay than the same EXACT procedure in the US?
Where is this shangrila of medicine that you speak of? I lived in the UK and the British doctor on base specifically warned me not to use the local hospitals because they had serious issues, i.e. using bedding over without washing, bugs in the ward, and lack of nurses to name a few. A friend experienced all those and more in the local hospital with his wife. You are putting up a lot of misinformation based on BS.

Our system is more expensive because we subsidize most of the drug research by pay full cost while the rest of the world caps those cost by factoring out R&D costs. We also have more advanced diagnostics in our hospitals than most of the world and the latest tech costs money. If someone needs the most advanced procedure they come here, if you want a common procedure for less there are other choices but they come without safe guards. Nothing is free.


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/4/2010 3:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
I apparently cannot post any actual links as my post keeps getting flagged "This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments" but I will be more than happy to e-mail the links (or if someone knows how to post them without it counting as "spam")
quote:
1. We do pay too much in taxes.

We aren't even in the top twenty in the world for highest taxes per our income. Search the OECD for statistics. If being number 21 is "too high" for being one of the richest countries in the world, where do you think we should be? This just further supports my "complain about paying taxes" argument. Kiplinger also has a "Do Americans Pay Too Much In Taxes" article in their archives that shows we actually pay even less percentage wise than we did 4 years ago.
quote:
2. What bill are you saying we don't want to pick up? We fund more of everything in the world than any other country.

2. If canada offers "free" (actually like 80% paid) health care then how can you say "we fund more of everything in the world than any other country"?
The "bill" is any of things we are talking about that are free in other countries, but we have to pay for ourselves here. I mean that if some poor 18 year old girl down the street with a crappy McD's job cant afford to go to college or go to the doctors for a broken leg, what are her options (in a humane world?) Are you going to pay her bill? I dont see many people in this country helping out. I'm not saying that nobody does, but the majority do not. They all want their money to themselves to go buy more fast food or their premium cars or their oversized houses while complaining about having some of the cheapest gas in the world.


RE: Government subsidies
By SPOOFE on 7/4/2010 3:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We aren't even in the top twenty in the world for highest taxes per our income.

Is that because our taxes are low, or because our incomes are so high?

No, you suggest a one dimensional metric. The real gauge is looking at WHAT is being done with the money. An example: Here in California, we've been throwing more and more money at our education system, hiring a ridiculous number of non-teaching personnel and giving raises left and right. And over the years, as education sucks up more and more money, dropout rates have gone up. They're absolutely unacceptable. That's how I can tell taxes are too high: They take more money and produce crappier results.

One percent of the population of California now works for the state gov't. Is it just a coincidence that California is on the verge of insolvency?

quote:
If being number 21 is "too high" for being one of the richest countries in the world, where do you think we should be?

As low on the list as possible, and no lower.

quote:
I mean that if some poor 18 year old girl down the street with a crappy McD's job cant afford to go to college or go to the doctors for a broken leg, what are her options (in a humane world?)

Go to the doctor, get her leg fixed, and let the taxpayer foot the bill; as a people we can't stomach the situation you just described, which is why hospitals can't deny treatment.

Ironically, in Canada, you CAN be denied treatment for such serious injuries, even if you make millions of dollars and could afford the treatment several times over.


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/4/2010 5:22:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is that because our taxes are low, or because our incomes are so high?

It is based as how much money is left over at the end of the year to spend on whatever we want so I would say thats both. If you look at percentage the numbers are similar, I think around 15th based on percentage.
quote:
No, you suggest a one dimensional metric. The real gauge is looking at WHAT is being done with the money. An example: Here in California, we've been throwing more and more money at our education system, hiring a ridiculous number of non-teaching personnel and giving raises left and right. And over the years, as education sucks up more and more money, dropout rates have gone up. They're absolutely unacceptable. That's how I can tell taxes are too high: They take more money and produce crappier results.

The topic was the amount of taxes so the conversation is "one dimensional" not just what I suggest. The topic of how efficient our government is with that money is a different conversation all together. Thats like saying its "too much" to spend $40k on a vehicle when that is way too broad a statement. I know many trucking companies that would kill to buy vehicles for even twice that amount. The problem of the US government efficiently using the money it is given (or takes) is the problem of the US and its citizens, we are talking globally here not just about the US. I am merely commenting from the POV of being a US citizen, and since the only ones defending this (and blindly at that) are US citizens I have to be on the offensive to counter the unfounded assumptions that seem to be pouring out. I also dont mean to imply everything said by everyone has been wrong, but the majority has been merely assumptions by a US citizen that the US is "the best" and they are searching for "reasons" to make that opinion true. It has to be said that in many ways the US is far from the best because we quite simply are not. Now I would love to be wrong about that, but unfortunately the facts support me here. Maybe overall when everything is weighed we are much closer than just "top 20" but we aren't talking about the country as a whole, merely small parts of it, and in regards to those parts we are far from the best
quote:
As low on the list as possible, and no lower.

Again just proves my original point that we dont want to pay taxes regardless of if the country as a whole will improve if we do.
quote:
Go to the doctor, get her leg fixed, and let the taxpayer foot the bill; as a people we can't stomach the situation you just described, which is why hospitals can't deny treatment.

The hospital cannot deny treatment, but will still sue you for the money. Thats why in this country the number one reason for individuals filing bancruptcy is medical bills and expenses. Thats part of what I meant by in a humane world, I dont consider ruining someones credit as a justified reaction to her having a broken leg. I also found absolutly no mention anywhere of Canada being able to deny emergency treatment. Im not saying that they cant (I dont know enough to say that) but if I found not one mention or instance of it then my reasoning is that it cant really be happening much if at all, maybe some loophole in a law somewhere that never actually comes up? I would love to read a source or two if you have one, I find it interesting that the Canadians would tolerate that AND have the health care system they do. I also dont know many people who go to Canada for treatment, usually just to buy the perscription drugs they need. Most people go overseas if they want the best care at the best price.


RE: Government subsidies
By SPOOFE on 7/4/2010 9:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is based as how much money is left over at the end of the year to spend on whatever we want so I would say thats both

So, yes, a one dimensional metric that doesn't accurately portray real life.

quote:
The topic was the amount of taxes so the conversation is "one dimensional" not just what I suggest. The topic of how efficient our government is with that money is a different conversation all together.

Efficiency is at the core; if 1% of your money is taken and wasted, that is too much tax compared to 10% of your money taken and used for things that actually benefit you. Tax is inherently tied to result, and if the results are good, then the tax is worth it.

Yes, it's muddy and subjective territory - what is "good" or "worth it", for instance - but that's how it is. You can't describe the complex interactions of various economic forces with a simple direct comparison of sums.

quote:
I am merely commenting from the POV of being a US citizen, and since the only ones defending this (and blindly at that) are US citizens I have to be on the offensive to counter the unfounded assumptions that seem to be pouring out.

It is unfounded to recognize a high tax for what it is? I don't think you're going on the offensive, bud; it looks like a defensive tone in your posts. I think you're reading too much into others posts.

quote:
I also dont mean to imply everything said by everyone has been wrong, but the majority has been merely assumptions by a US citizen that the US is "the best" and they are searching for "reasons" to make that opinion true.

I don't see that attitude at all. While it is true that any large enough group of people will have the extremely vocal minority of douchebags that won't listen to reason, the vast majority of opinions from that group will be more reasoned. And while there is some vitriol being used in other posts, I don't see this "US is best" attitude that you seem to observe.

quote:
The hospital cannot deny treatment, but will still sue you for the money. Thats why in this country the number one reason for individuals filing bancruptcy is medical bills and expenses.

Yup, sometimes the choices you need to make to save your life or improve your health are difficult ones. I think it's wonderful that those choices exist, as opposed to some government-supplied health care plans that don't allow for some choices.

quote:
Thats part of what I meant by in a humane world, I dont consider ruining someones credit as a justified reaction to her having a broken leg.

And I think that's exactly why credit exists, for awful unavoidable emergencies. Credit isn't a right; it's an abstraction representing a given person or entity's ability to generate and manage revenue. If someone incurs a major expense or gigantic chunk of debt - even if it's because of some crisis that was not their fault at all - it is an absolute reality of their history. You can't pretend it DIDN'T happen.

That's why we have bankruptcy. It is the recognition that shit does happen. It's not comfortable or pretty, nor should it be. If bankruptcy were easy, it would be heavily abused.

quote:
I also found absolutly no mention anywhere of Canada being able to deny emergency treatment.

I don't know why you'd even look, as I certainly didn't specify "emergency treatment".


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/6/2010 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Efficiency is at the core; if 1% of your money is taken and wasted, that is too much tax compared to 10% of your money taken and used for things that actually benefit you. Tax is inherently tied to result, and if the results are good, then the tax is worth it.

This is exactly what I said, which was in contrast to the "the lowest possible" comment posted by someone that is not me. I never said to pay as much as possible, and I have stressed efficiency in every post. My argument is not to take all of our money, my argument is (and has been) that it is better to have higher taxes used well to improve the lives of everyone in the country. I totally agree that "good" and "worth it" are subjective and different for everyone, I never said otherwise.
quote:
It is unfounded to recognize a high tax for what it is? I don't think you're going on the offensive, bud; it looks like a defensive tone in your posts. I think you're reading too much into others posts.

Following the quote above "high" is subjective. The original post leading to this was about how "high" taxes are in other countries when they provide more with that money. The arguement was that it was a waste and that started this whole debate in all its glory. I dont consider my position defensive as I have pretty much steered this debate in its entirety. If I was being defensive I would have made a statement and spend the rest of the posts defending it, this has evolved as I saw fit... seems pretty much an offensive IMO.
quote:
I don't see that attitude at all. While it is true that any large enough group of people will have the extremely vocal minority of douchebags that won't listen to reason, the vast majority of opinions from that group will be more reasoned. And while there is some vitriol being used in other posts, I don't see this "US is best" attitude that you seem to observe.

The majority of comments about the cost and price of healthcare as well as our "abilities" in regard to preserving life and mending injuries was not based on anything factual but instead on the belief that the US is number one just because it is. Not one person anywhere at any time here has offered even one source to show me that the United States of America is rating number 1 in anything related to healthcare (aside from being most expensive.) Read through the posts objectively and you will see it, unless you think spouting opinion as fact is valid. In which case we dont need to continue this as my goal is in no way to change your opinions, you can keep them no matter how much the differ from mine... I just dont like to see people saying something is the truth when it clearly is not.
quote:
Yup, sometimes the choices you need to make to save your life or improve your health are difficult ones. I think it's wonderful that those choices exist, as opposed to some government-supplied health care plans that don't allow for some choices.
There are always choices, my arguement is that health choices should not negatively impact your life. If you need to file for bankruptcy because of a medical accident I feel there is something wrong. Credit is meant to show how responsible or not someone is with their finances. If you need a heart operation that results in $150k in bills, how does that mean that you are irresponsible with money? How does that negatively reflect on your normal ability to pay off a car loan? I dont see how those two should be related in any way at all...
quote:
And I think that's exactly why credit exists, for awful unavoidable emergencies.

So your saying that everyone should buy their house with cash? I'm pretty sure credit was established as a way for people to make large purchases while posing as little risk as possible to the ones lending the money. Now credit cards were originally intended to serve in emergencies, but credit was around long before such a thing as credit cards.
quote:
If bankruptcy were easy, it would be heavily abused.

Bankruptcy is very easy btw... as long as you aren't rich I guess.
quote:
I don't know why you'd even look, as I certainly didn't specify "emergency treatment".

Totally my assumption, if we aren't talking about emergency treatment then why are we talking about it. Are you saying that every doctor or dentist in the US HAS to see everyone who comes in? That just isn't true at all, those rules are for emergency treatment, we are no different in that regard. Why would you even point that out? The whole comment makes no sense unless you were talking about emergency treatment.


RE: Government subsidies
By juserbogus on 7/5/2010 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And over the years, as education sucks up more and more money, dropout rates have gone up.

it doesn't seem like you have the facts straight...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html


RE: Government subsidies
By Reclaimer77 on 7/4/2010 5:28:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "bill" is any of things we are talking about that are free in other countries, but we have to pay for ourselves here. I mean that if some poor 18 year old girl down the street with a crappy McD's job cant afford to go to college or go to the doctors for a broken leg, what are her options (in a humane world?) Are you going to pay her bill? I dont see many people in this country helping out. I'm not saying that nobody does, but the majority do not. They all want their money to themselves to go buy more fast food or their premium cars or their oversized houses while complaining about having some of the cheapest gas in the world.


Well now I know you're a complete moron and a Marxist.

Yeah you're right dude, people who break their legs in this country are left to wander the streets until they get Gan-green and DIE...

Are you fucking retarded??

And why is keeping your own money a bad thing? You are SUCH a socialist leftist little fuck. God this angers me!! Stop making the productive members of our society out to be bad people!!!

What's funny is you say all this crap, but I bet you haven't done SHIT for other people anyway. Go ahead and list all the charities you donate to. List all the community groups you participate in. How many homeless have you invited to live in your own house?

That's what I thought. You're full of fucking hot air. Go jump off a roof asshole.


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/6/2010 2:47:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well now I know you're a complete moron and a Marxist.

Apparently you know as much about me as you do this topic. I am neither a moron nor a Marxist. Some of my ideals may parallel those of a Marxist, but my ideals parallel many different types of societies. As in many things in life I dont think there is just one "right answer."
quote:
Yeah you're right dude, people who break their legs in this country are left to wander the streets until they get Gan-green and DIE...

I never said or implied anything of the sort, if you want to have a logical debate then you need to learn to read first.
quote:
And why is keeping your own money a bad thing? You are SUCH a socialist leftist little fuck. God this angers me!! Stop making the productive members of our society out to be bad people!!!

I never said that keeping your own money is a bad thing, not at all my point. Im saying that taxes are needed to run a country, its my opinion that if it takes more in taxes to better run a country then thats what it takes. I never said that anyone productive was bad, again you are inventing my argument and totally fail to understand my opinion in even the most basic way. I just want people to be productive to the country as a whole, not JUST their bank accounts. I think if you start a company or invent something you deserve to be rich for it... but you should also help out this country by paying for a few new police cars, or helping pay for the girls broken leg.
quote:
What's funny is you say all this crap, but I bet you haven't done SHIT for other people anyway. Go ahead and list all the charities you donate to. List all the community groups you participate in. How many homeless have you invited to live in your own house?

Again you just invent what you hope is the truth, I donate time, items, and money to Salvation army (money and time), Goodwill (time and items), the local food banks (items), donate money to breast cancer (grandmother had cancer), and money to Aplastic Anemia (my mother). I also volunteer with the cub scouts and the YMCA where my fiancee works. I have never invited a homeless person into my house and will not, I dont know who they are or what they are capable of doing. I have brought many coffee though during the winter. I also give food or gift certificates (like free food coupons) to anyone holding a sign (but never money, too easy to spend it on drugs or alcohol). I am just assuming here, but based on your attitude you do none of those. You strike me as a kid who doesn't listen or care about anything besides yourself.
quote:
That's what I thought. You're full of fucking hot air. Go jump off a roof asshole.

I'm full of hot air with every breath I take, I most certainly will not jump off a roof... but you already knew that (or did you?). This is like arguing with a high school special ed student, at least the others make something resembling a valid point.


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/4/2010 3:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where is this shangrila of medicine that you speak of? I lived in the UK and the British doctor on base specifically warned me not to use the local hospitals because they had serious issues, i.e. using bedding over without washing, bugs in the ward, and lack of nurses to name a few. A friend experienced all those and more in the local hospital with his wife. You are putting up a lot of misinformation based on BS.

Business-in-asia website has a good collection of top medical tourism spots and their cost comparison to the us. You will find we dont come remotely close in cost despite being AT BEST on par with many of them. Or go to wikipedia and search for "medical tourism." Scan through the "destinations" section and you will find that many of them are destinations because of the huge savings in costs compared to the US. While I am not saying to go to every country listed many are much safer than the US in incidence of deaths, infections, and complications. I also dont see how one isolated experience from one friend of yours is a valid argument in really any debate. Now some validated reports of a significant number of people having similar problems then maybe... but even then I never said go to the UK, I merely said not the US. Maybe theirs is really bad? I dont know about the UK. I am full of no BS or opinion (other than the very first part of this post,) just facts, where are your supporting sources?
quote:
Our system is more expensive because we subsidize most of the drug research by pay full cost while the rest of the world caps those cost by factoring out R&D costs. We also have more advanced diagnostics in our hospitals than most of the world and the latest tech costs money. If someone needs the most advanced procedure they come here, if you want a common procedure for less there are other choices but they come without safe guards. Nothing is free

Of the top 8 major drug companies in the world only 2 are US companies and one of those is Johnson & Johnson who contributes very little to the pharmaceutical industry compared to the others. I dont see how "R&D costs" have anything to do with the fact that health care in the US is often times up to 1000% higher than comparable countries when many more contries are paying these "R&D costs."
As for the tech aspect we actually aren't even near the top of the non-3rd world countries. We are in the top about 80% but that is very far from "We also have more advanced diagnostics in our hospitals than most of the world and the latest tech costs money." I guess if you ignore 20% of the world then yeah we beat most. The HealthAffairs website has a list of the countries and how much high tech medical equipment is available per 100k people who live there, we aren't even close to the top unless you include 3rd world countries, then we dont look THAT bad... but we are not even close to the top. The PBS website from "July-Dec09" has a general comparison of how much health care costs each person in many big countries. We dont lead in any catagory except being the most expensive... that is it. I'm not sure where you are getting any of your information but I would love to read a few of your sources... talk about spouting BS and misinformation. Please do some research before you try to call someone out about something you obviously have no real knowledge about, you are just regurgitating what the government and drug companies told you (talk about biased sources).


RE: Government subsidies
By Reclaimer77 on 7/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/4/2010 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Where are your objective sources that prove that the statistics are slanted? I find that comparing apples to apples provides a pretty objective view. Comparing how much something costs in american dollars compared to how much something costs in american dollars seems to be pretty straight forward in my experiences. I prefer debates that use facts, not just your opinion. Anyone can say "your wrong because I said so" so step up and show some factual basis for what you are saying.


RE: Government subsidies
By Reclaimer77 on 7/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/6/2010 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 1
I dont know why I cannot post links, this is just stupid. I see others post comments but when i try I get a "This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments" and it wont let me post. If you actually want to know I can e-mail you the links for the facts that I stated.


RE: Government subsidies
By Dewey115 on 7/6/10, Rating: 0
"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki