backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by Nexing.. on Aug 24 at 12:13 PM

Tesla received a combined rating of 5.4 stars

Tesla Motors recently received the highest safety rating ever from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

NHTSA gave Tesla's Model S a five-star safety rating in each individual category and overall, achieving a combined rating of 5.4 stars. This is the highest rating ever given by the U.S. agency. 

This is a big deal, considering NHTSA only gives about 1 percent of cars tested a five-star rating in every category.

According to Tesla, it grabbed such a high rating for a few different reasons. For starters, the Model S doesn't have a large engine block, which means there's a longer crumple zone to "absorb" a high-speed crash. The motor is only about a foot in diameter and is near the rear axle while the front has a second trunk.

For the rear crash test, Tesla made sure to protect occupants in the third row of the vehicle with a double bumper that can take a highway speed impact. 

Tesla added that the Model S was about 50 percent better than its competitors in the rollover test. In fact, the Model S didn't roll over at all through normal methods; it took unique situations to actually turn it over, and Tesla said this is because the battery is mounted below the floor pan for a low center of gravity. 

 

A particularly difficult test to pass, according to Tesla, is the side pole intrusion test, and the Model S was the only vehicle to get a "good" rating in that category among the other top 1 percent of the vehicles tested. This was due to the use of multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the Model S, which absorb the impact energy and send the load to the rest of the car. 

For those who are worried about battery fires, the Model S' battery was fine before, during and after testing. 

But perhaps the most interesting part of the testing was when the Model S' roof broke the machine for roof crush protection. Check this out:

"Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g's," said Tesla. "While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving in. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement attached via aerospace grade bolts."

Tesla is undoubtedly a superhero in the American electric vehicle (EV) industry. It started out with a $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in June 2009. The loan, which was part of the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, was to be repaid by 2022. But in March 2013, Tesla received permission to pay the loan back five years early by mid-2017. 

But in May of this year, Tesla has repaid the whole sum -- nine years earlier than expected from the original 2022 due date.

Clearly, Tesla is making money. For Q2 2013, Tesla reported a loss of $30.5 million (26 cents a share), which was much narrower than the $105.6 million ($1 a share) loss in the year-ago quarter. The automaker had an adjusted profit of 22 cents, which beat expectations of a non-GAAP loss of 17 cents. In the year-ago quarter, Tesla reported a profit loss of 89 cents. 

Revenue jumped to $405.1 million compared to just $26.7 million in the year-ago quarter. Analysts expected a revenue of $383 million for Q2 2013. 


Tesla has also started showing off new tech that could transform the electric auto industry. In June, Tesla unveiled a convenient alternative to waiting for a Model S to charge -- battery swapping. The idea behind battery swapping is to easily open the car chassis to pull the battery out and replace it with a fully charged one. This saves the driver from having to wait for their battery to charge before traveling.
 
Tesla is also working on a charging system that would get drivers out of the Supercharger stations and back on the road with a full charge in just 5 minutes.

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By mars2k on 8/20/2013 12:18:30 PM , Rating: -1
Where are all the rabid right wing republican tea baggers that were bashing Tesla before they payed the money back?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/20/2013 12:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think us "right wingers" were "bashing" Tesla over crash test ratings. Just a thought...

And cronyism is still bad, even if you think the ends justified the means.

If a Republican Administration loaned a car start-up company half a billion, so they could make ICE vehicles, you people would blow a gasket. You would be all cloaked with anti-cronyism and the abuse of Government power and anti-lobbying.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reflex on 8/20/2013 2:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Republicans and Democrats already do this. They spend hundreds of billions on investments in private corporations for products that often are never even used. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and dozens of others receive huge amounts of tax dollars, while much of what they produce is not utilized, and many projects(for instance the F-22) are unlikely to ever see action.

Its a sad state of affairs, and I wonder if all that money were put into companies like Tesla, even with such a high failure rate among them, if the return on investment would not be dramatically higher than what we are getting today.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/20/2013 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They spend hundreds of billions on investments in private corporations for products that often are never even used.
Again, those are NOT investments! That's the Government's friggin job. They are supposed to provide for defense. See the Preamble of the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Government can INVEST in anything. They do that of their OWN accord and only continue to do so because of the ignorance and apathy of the American public.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/20/2013 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Rate me down all you want cowards. Defense IS governments job. Look it up.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reflex on 8/20/2013 5:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Defense could be provided for with a tiny fraction of the budget. What about all the rest?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/20/2013 7:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defense could be provided for with a tiny fraction of the budget. What about all the rest?
I wouldn't even have a problem with the amount IF the military was run efficiently. Not what you said though. You said it was an investment. It's not, it's the Government's job.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By cmart on 8/21/2013 9:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
Quote: "Defense could be provided for with a tiny fraction of the budget. What about all the rest?"

ummmm... let us keep it?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By sleepeeg3 on 8/21/2013 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Rest?? Put it toward the debt! Defense only makes up about 25% of the budget and we overspend by about 100%. Most of the rest are entitlements. Totally eliminating defense would not even solve our problem.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By topkill on 8/22/2013 9:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the rest are entitlements


Source? If you're including Social Security maybe, but that is NOT an entitlement.

The problem with DT is that most of the people who post on here say things without ever sourcing any facts. Then they all read it enough and it becomes "facts". If you look at any of the gov't sites, you'll find that:

If you include Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc then maybe you get around 35%. That's not "most". Actual "Welfare" is only about 4%.

Is that too much? Hell yes, even for a bleeding heart liberal. It needs to be cut to hell especially considering how much fraud there is and how many people should get off their ass and work.

But we also spend way too much on defense, homeland security (my god, the TSA morons are a waste of protoplasm).


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/20/2013 7:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere in that document does it say that the Government can INVEST in anything.
Nor does it say anywhere in that document that government is prohibited from investing in anything. And it's not like government had traditionally never invested on behalf of the nation. Major historical examples include the Louisiana and Alaska purchases, the transcontinental railroads, things like the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam, etc.
quote:
They do that ... because of the ignorance and apathy of the American public.
I beg to differ. I think a majority of the American public is both aware and supportive of such strategic national investments.

On the other hand:
quote:
They are supposed to provide for defense.
True, but where in the Constitution does it say that defense spending must eclipse that of all other developed nations in the world, combined? Where and how in the Constitution is "defense" redefined as "offence"? Where in the Constitution is "defense" formulated as active projection of power onto opposite hemispheres, in pursuit of geopolitical and/or economic advantage? Where is "defense" formulated in terms of "nation-building" or "regime change"? And where is "common defense" Constitutionally equated to defense or advancement of corporate multinational interests?

If you're going to argue that the Feds have stretched and distorted their Constitutional mandate on other issues, you would be a hypocrite not to admit that among the worst and most egregious distortions of all, ranks the present and ever-growing cancerous malignancy of the military-industrial complex coupled to national security police state...

Incidentally, according to the Constitution as written and strictly interpreted in historical context, the Feds aren't supposed to maintain a standing professional army, at all . At best they might coordinate "A well regulated Militia" (per the Second Amendment) that would consist of armed civilians (i.e. "the people" with the right "to keep and bear Arms".)

So, just how strictly shall we insist on interpreting the Constitution? And how consistent shall we be in applying our absolute and unbendable principles?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 1:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, but where in the Constitution does it say that defense spending must eclipse that of all other developed nations in the world, combined?
And where in the Constitution does it say they can spend on anything they damn well please?

quote:
So, just how strictly shall we insist on interpreting the Constitution? And how consistent shall we be in applying our absolute and unbendable principles?
Fed power is explicitly stated. There is no grey area here, what the Feds don't get, the States do. The States can do whatever their voters want (within law and etc.). The Fed gets no such privilege.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 4:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And where in the Constitution does it say they can spend on anything they damn well please?
Again, where does it say that they can't?
quote:
Fed power is explicitly stated. There is no grey area here, what the Feds don't get, the States do.
Power, yes. But there are no limits on their discretionary spending or administrative policies. That is, the Feds can't overrule the States on issues where the Constitution doesn't grant the Feds the power to do so. However, that doesn't and has never historically stopped the Feds from doing things not explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.

For instance, the Constitution contains no mention of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, Department of State (the oldest one, in place since 1789), or any other Federal departments and/or their respective functions. It contains no mention of NASA, CIA, FBI, FDA, NSA, SEC, CFTC, FCC, EPA, FAA, NIH, NIST, NNSA, FERC, the Pentagon, or any other Federal agencies or their functions.

The view that the Feds can only do anything that's explicitly stated in the Constitution, is patently erroneous and utterly dysfunctional. Under that view, one could never create a coherent nation (or Republic, if you like) capable of exercising its sovereignty either domestically or on the international stage. It's a prescription for a loose Confederation, which was tried and utterly failed, just prior to the crafting of the second (current) U.S. Constitution (have you ever studied American history?)

Micromanagement of Federal functions was never the intent behind the Constitution, and the Constitution was crafted with explicit and stated understanding that it is a legal framework for governance, not an exact procedural prescription (as it is impossible to anticipate and accommodate for all future needs and practical exigencies in advance, which would anyway bloat the Constitution into tens of thousands of pages if even attempted, thereby rendering it unusable.) To work out the details of governance is what the Legislative Branch is for in the first place! (By the way, have you ever taken a class in government or civics back in High School?)

The Constitution considers only the very broad matters of rights, powers, and democratic processes. It is neither a prescription for nor a blanket restriction against policy. Where policy does not conflict with enumerated powers (and whether such conflicts arise is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to decide), that policy is allowed by the Constitution.

And incidentally, this isn't a new debate. It's been discussed by much smarter and more knowledgeable people than you and I, for well over 200 years now.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nor does it say anywhere in that document that government is prohibited from investing in anything


And here is where you people completely and utterly fail basic Constitutional awareness.

The Constitution doesn't need to prohibit the activity. The function of the Constitution is to spell out the responsibilities and authorities of our elected Representatives, Congress, and the Government.

Translation: If "that document" doesn't specifically grant Congress the power to invest in the free market with public money, that action is Unconstitutional by default.

The 10'th Amendment, that pesky technicality us Conservatives and Libertarians are always quoting, is pretty clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"


Also what you people call "investment" in EV's is Unconstitutional, it's cronyism. This is also clearly spelled out in the injunction against titles of nobility in article nine section one of the Constitution. The Government granted tax dollars and favors to Tesla and other companies, and gave them a leg up over others. This is an example of what the Constitution was meant to prohibit.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If "that document" doesn't specifically grant Congress the power to invest in the free market with public money, that action is Unconstitutional by default
To publicly and flagrantly abuse language and common sense by calling this a "power", which then allows you to erect your argumentative house of cards, is your prerogative. But this is not a power by any reasonable interpretation. The power to issue law, enforce law, sign treaties, collect taxes and tariffs, issue currency, wage war, etc. -- these are powers. The choice of how to structure or appropriate Federal budgetary line items is not a power, it's a detail of governance. See my more detailed reply to Spuke above...

And oh by the way, there is no mention of the "free market" or anything even close to that, even tangentially, anywhere in the Constitution. So Federal acts of meddling in the free market (or even more broadly, any Federal attempts to engineer the economy) are perfectly Constitutional in the sense that they present no conflict with anything in the Constitution. Regardless of whether you or I ideologically like that or not...
quote:
...the injunction against titles of nobility ... Government granted tax dollars and favors to Tesla and other companies, and gave them a leg up over others.
Now you're off the deep end. There is absolutely no connection between titles of nobility and cronyism. Yes, both are undesirable. But while Nobility is unconstitutional in America, cronyism and corruption have always been around, before, during, and after the crafting of the Constitution.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 4:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
Meh you're just a big pile of collectivist crap. Using whatever broad and fictional interpretations you need to create to justify your nonsense.

You will find no authority in the Constitution granting the Government authority to regulate any commerce they see fit. The "free market" doesn't have to be specifically mentioned.

And if you want to use the much-raped "Commerce clause" to back up your position, well that's your prerogative as well. Most sensible people know it was never intended, or actually worded, to grant Congress ultimate authority over the country.

quote:
Now you're off the deep end. There is absolutely no connection between titles of nobility and cronyism.


And you're absolutely wrong. You're just another ignorant person who ignores the meaning of the Constitution because the wording doesn't match exactly our times and culture. When it's clear what the intent of the document is clear.

You're like those who argue we have no right to travel because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention vehicles, trains, planes etc etc.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You will find no authority in the Constitution granting the Government authority to regulate any commerce they see fit.
Again, neither will you find there a prohibition to that effect.

Your problem is, you're trying to twist the Constitution into a weapon for your politics. The solution to your problem, is to leave the Constitution unmolested and simply pursue your politics. Congress (representing the will of the people) made all these laws and regulations that you disagree with. You can argue as to the merits of the laws and regulations, and work to change them via the Congressional route. But you won't succeed in arguing that these things are invalid ipso facto due to some Constitutional conflict that doesn't exist (if it did, the Supreme Court would've ruled accordingly, in most of these cases many decades ago...)
quote:
You're just another ignorant person who ignores the meaning of the Constitution
Oh, OK. Please enlighten me, then, regarding how federal cash flowing to specific domestic companies somehow grants investors in those companies hereditary titles that endow them and all of their offspring in perpetuity (until/unless explicitly stripped by royal decree) with lands, property, rights, and privileges above those of ordinary peasants. Or perhaps, you might explain how above-mentioned federal cash amounts to bribes by foreign nations to our federal politicians...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, neither will you find there a prohibition to that effect.


Again, you fail.

The Constitution isn't a list of things the Government can't do. It's a list of things it can. If it's not specifically granted that authority, it falls under the 10'th Amendment and by definition isn't Constitutional. This is basic basic stuff!

"The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution , has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th...

Basically you're making up that the Government has all these powers. You're lying or just THAT ignorant.

Also you're arguing that because our courts and Congress routinely make law things that don't pass Constitutional muster, it means these are de-facto Constitutional and that I'm inherently wrong for questioning them.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 6:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically you're making up that the Government has all these powers.
No, I'm simply being careful to distinguish (constitutional) powers from (executive) agencies and (legislative) regulations. Not equivalent concepts, at all. A power enables you to do something. The act of doing something is not in itself a power, it is only a specific application of powers.

You call the act of regulating something a power. I call it what it is: an act of the legislature issuing law, combined with the act of the executive branch implementing law. Now, according to the 10th Amendment the federal government has absolutely no right (beyond enumerated exceptions) to meddle in internal affairs of states. However, when it comes to cross-state (national) or international issues, the federal government has every right to meddle as it sees fit (because in such cases, neither the states nor the individual citizenry have the proper jurisdiction.) And like it or not, the more mobile and connected the nation and the world become, the more expansive grows the Constitutionally valid scope of federal influence over policy -- because an ever-larger fraction of our mundane everyday activities begin to either cross state and even international boundaries, or to become vitally dependent upon interstate and international infrastructures, standardization, and coordination.
quote:
Also you're arguing that because our courts and Congress routinely make law things that don't pass Constitutional muster
When that happens, upon attempt at implementation such laws are challenged by people (like you) and struck down by the constitutional courts (and incidentally, courts do not and cannot make law; they have only the power to interpret law.) Yes, the federal circuit and supreme courts do sometimes make mistakes, but on the whole they're right far more often than they're wrong.

Yet you are effectively claiming that they are fundamentally mistaken over perhaps 90% of all federal laws on the books (some of such laws dating back to almost the origins of the Constitution itself, and most such laws being decades-old.) Amazingly, you somehow fail to perceive the sheer absurdity of your stance...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society. Okay, whatever.

Then you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books, more of which are added every day.

quote:
Yes, the federal circuit and supreme courts do sometimes make mistakes, but on the whole they're right far more often than they're wrong.


It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent. For example the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which began our reign of Congressional tyranny through the Commerce Clause, and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 7:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society.
In a sense, yes. That question was actually settled back during the Reconstruction era. But in the modern world, this is even more the case for a whole slew of new and additional reasons.

The Constitution and our form of government were, and remain, an ongoing experiment. Most of the underlying theories and axioms held up reasonably well in practice, while some proved unworkable. Some of it was fixed through constitutional amendments, some was addressed simply by considering contemporary context when interpreting the Constitution, and the rest remain as ongoing problems. In other words, the system has mostly functioned as-designed, learning from its past experiences and adapting to a changing world. That's good, not bad.
quote:
you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books
But they've certainly at least reviewed (on multiple occasions, from multiple angles) the laws you especially care about. We both know that.
quote:
It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent.
And if the people really do disagree with them en masse, it only takes one constitutional amendment to reverse such rulings...
quote:
1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling
It's odd, I agree, yet undeniably logical within constitutional constraints. It's an example of something that was unforeseen by the Framers, and could be easily fixed by a constitutional amendment clarifying the scope of what is meant by interstate commerce, and what type of activities are considered to be regulation thereof.
quote:
and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling
Yes, I agree that was a strange ruling, not least because it was argued in a strange manner. This one is clearly not a matter of penalty, but is indeed a tax treatment. Yet a perfectly Constitutional one, or else all the various tax deduction rules currently in effect (like mortgage interest, paid rent, business expense, marriage, per-child, etc.; again, many of them decades old) would have to be abolished for the crime of encouraging (or discouraging) various types of economic and/or personal choices by imposing varying tax burdens accordingly. Oh well; right decision (IMO), wrong way of getting there...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Rikk on 8/20/2013 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
A Republican Administration is responsible for the program you are getting upset about. The ATVM DOE program that Tesla's loan came from (now paid back in full) was a Bush Administration program. The amount of historical revisionism that certain elements of the right engage in is astonishing.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By ClownPuncher on 8/20/2013 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
So, since he is a Republican, now he is wrong for not agreeing with the program in the first place because it was Republicans who started it?

Maybe he disagrees with the political ideology behind the program in the first place.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Rikk on 8/20/2013 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 3
I don't care if he agrees with the DOE ATVM program or not. It's the hypocritical partisan nonsense that I object to.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/20/2013 3:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the hypocritical partisan nonsense that I object to.
It's not hypocritical to have a friggin opinion that doesn't match your political parties.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By 1prophet on 8/21/2013 6:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because most of our money Obama "invested" in "green" companies, playing games with taxpayer dollars, ended up squandered as a bankrupt cronyism mess. This one, Tesla, is a rare exception, one example of success for an Administration mired in failure.


It's comments like these he was referring to.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
What does that have to do with anything? I don't have to support things because some Republican signed them into law. There's nothing "right wing" about the ATVM DOE program, it's just all around bad no matter who brought it forth.

I also don't recall mentioning Obama or his Administration in this thread, not ONCE. I think you're engaging in some off-key confirmation bias or something. Historical revisionism? Please, you're seeing things here that aren't real.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Labotomizer on 8/20/2013 12:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
I personally think that investments in forward thinking technology and research is a good use of tax payer money. Much better than a lot of the other nonsense we spend money on.

However, I wanted the Tesla prior to these findings. I want it for the 200 mile range, which would cover about 90% of my driving and for the performance. It's a great car. I'd still need a family vehicle for longer road trips, drives across Texas, etc. But for daily use it would be awesome. And it's a damn good looking car too.

But I don't think the government should be restricting what we choose to drive. If I want a truck that gets 10 mpg, and I can afford said truck with gas factored in, that should be my choice. Not the government's. Although, the ability for LGBT to get married should be their business, not the government's either. I think the government should be very conservative but that applies to everything. The government also has no business telling a church that they need to accept those marriages either, that's a private institution and it's up to them.

My biggest problem with politics is the number of people who want small government in areas that suit them but regulations on things they don't like and vice versa. Everyone seems to do that.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Ammohunt on 8/20/2013 3:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although, the ability for LGBT to get married should be their business, not the government's either. I think the government should be very conservative but that applies to everything. The government also has no business telling a church that they need to accept those marriages either, that's a private institution and it's up to them.


Sorry had to reply since i fell you are confusing two different things in regards to gay marriage. As far as equal treatment under the law where gay marriage is concerned government involvement is implied(my opinion it should only be state government). No one is forcing churches to accept gay marriage except certain militant gays that force the gay agenda on everyone equally. For the record I am not gay or liberal however I am for equal rights protections of gay unions(i will leave it up to society to decide on weather or not to call it marriage). That being said i will never accept homosexuality as normal, i will obviously have to tolerate it as i do with many other human behaviors. Save your homophobic label; of the few things i am afraid of in this world homosexuality isn't one of them.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/20/2013 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
You beg commentary on a couple of things:
quote:
I don't think the government should be restricting what we choose to drive.
In an absolute sense, or within limits? For instance, I don't think anyone should be allowed to drive tanks: the weight plus the tracks will ruin pretty much any road they touch... There are other considerations as well that have to do with general welfare: excessive toxic emissions out of the tailpipe or excessively leaking oil/coolant fluids, for instance, or excessive engine noise, or being unsafe to operate for whatever reason. In other words, it is perfectly within the government's role to protect other people from damage you might cause them through your choice of vehicle (or really, through any other choices.)
quote:
the ability for LGBT to get married should be their business, not the government's either
Completely off-topic, but since you brought it up, the government is involved because it chooses to impose special privileges and benefits, as well as obligations, on married people (e.g. tax savings, parental/visitation/medical/estate rights, child care/child support, etc.) For the purposes of conferring these privileges and obligations, government must necessarily define what it means by "marriage". This is a purely secular (non-religious) matter, in particular as it must apply to all irrespective of specific religion or lack thereof, and as such operates and applies only within the secular spheres of governance. Apropos:
quote:
The government also has no business telling a church that they need to accept those marriages either
You're right, and the government wasn't and isn't trying to do any such thing. If you heard otherwise, then you were being lied to (and I'd take it up with your 'sources'.) Government can and must define marriage only and purely in terms of a civil institution (because the government's sphere of activity encompasses the civil repercussions of marriage and procreation.)

To those who insist that marriage is an entirely religious institution, I always pose this question: should atheists or agnostics be prohibited from marrying? To those who insist that marriage makes sense only in the context of procreation, I ask this: are infertile (or otherwise incapable of reproduction -- e.g. through injury, disease, or old age) people allowed to marry, and is there no such thing as a marriage of convenience or a marriage in absence of sexual relations?

Yes, again completely OT, but food for your thought...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Labotomizer on 8/20/2013 8:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
You make some valid points and you're right, I went way off topic. You start rambling after 3 weeks+ without a day off.

But to your points, you're right. I'm talking road legal vehicles. My problem is the way the government is going about driving alternatives to fossil fuels, not that fossil fuels shouldn't be phased out as the ultimate goal. Setting arbitrary CAFE standards doesn't help. It drives up the price of the cars. The problem is that it's also keeping the price of hybrids high since you typically pay more than a traditional ICE vehicle. This isn't terribly useful. As long as driving a traditional gas powered car is cheaper the problem won't go away. And by increasing gas mileage you lower demand and lowering demand keeps gas prices flat. When gas is high enough that people really want to move to alternatives then the industry will provide. There are ways for the government to help accomplish this but it's also something I'm not sure I agree with. I don't know of an easy answer.

And yes, the government absolutely has to define what marriage is. But the arguments against gay marriage stem from two lines of thinking. One is that it's wrong according to the Bible, which is kind of a problem when it's a reason to right government policy. The other is that "marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman". Which holds little more merit than the prior argument. For a long time it was always that "black people aren't actually people". And countless other injustices based on race, sex, religion, etc. This is no different.

I'm not saying the government is trying to dictate to church that they should allow it but in a lot of cases the same argument for same sex marriage, and in states where it is legal, is they're upset their church doesn't recognize that. That's not up to the government nor should it be. It's much like the suit against a Catholic university because their health insurance didn't cover birth control. It's a private institution with their own beliefs, you don't have to follow them but don't expect the government to step in and change them either. It's stupid.

I just find everything very hypocritical and I'm tired of both sides of political arguments. Everyone wants the government to back off something and enforce something else. And often times for all the wrong reasons. I was just ranting in my earlier post. I suppose this wasn't much better though...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 12:06:04 AM , Rating: 1
As does yours:

quote:
In an absolute sense, or within limits? For instance, I don't think anyone should be allowed to drive tanks: the weight plus the tracks will ruin pretty much any road they touch... There are other considerations as well that have to do with general welfare: excessive toxic emissions out of the tailpipe or excessively leaking oil/coolant fluids, for instance, or excessive engine noise, or being unsafe to operate for whatever reason. In other words, it is perfectly within the government's role to protect other people from damage you might cause them through your choice of vehicle (or really, through any other choices.)


No one is asking to drive a tank. Let's be real here. But if I, a consumer, choose to buy and drive a semi-truck every day, I should be able to.

And there are plenty of states that allow vehicles to be on the road that are death traps. It sucks but that kind of comes down to what do you want to force? Furthermore, those are states doing those things. Not the FEDERAL government. Now as far as emissions you may deem as dangerous, where is the federal government's authority to regulate such a thing? It doesn't exist. The general welfare clause was never meant to mean every good idea (a subjective term on a topic if there ever was one). If the federal government wants to regulate that, Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment to do so. Or the states can call a convention to do so.

quote:
Completely off-topic, but since you brought it up, the government is involved because it chooses to impose special privileges and benefits, as well as obligations, on married people (e.g. tax savings, parental/visitation/medical/estate rights, child care/child support, etc.) For the purposes of conferring these privileges and obligations, government must necessarily define what it means by "marriage". This is a purely secular (non-religious) matter, in particular as it must apply to all irrespective of specific religion or lack thereof, and as such operates and applies only within the secular spheres of governance. Apropos:


Yes and all those tax incentives should disappear in the eyes of the federal government. They shouldn't care if you're married. It should only be doing what its Constitutionally allowed to do and taxing everyone equally for that. States should be more involved. All the federal government should have a say in is federal employees. Where they absolutely have discretion to make up whatever rules they want for benefits they provide. I think though that you should be able to designate whoever you want for things like visitation rights or beneficiary. Marriage or no marriage. I don't see why the issue of marriage has to be brought into those things at all at the federal level. States can choose to be more strict if they want to though.

quote:
You're right, and the government wasn't and isn't trying to do any such thing. If you heard otherwise, then you were being lied to (and I'd take it up with your 'sources'.) Government can and must define marriage only and purely in terms of a civil institution (because the government's sphere of activity encompasses the civil repercussions of marriage and procreation.) To those who insist that marriage is an entirely religious institution, I always pose this question: should atheists or agnostics be prohibited from marrying? To those who insist that marriage makes sense only in the context of procreation, I ask this: are infertile (or otherwise incapable of reproduction -- e.g. through injury, disease, or old age) people allowed to marry, and is there no such thing as a marriage of convenience or a marriage in absence of sexual relations?


Bullshit they're not. The current administration is telling Christian chaplains in the military that they have to perform a service for whoever wants it. No matter the beliefs of their faith. No they're not saying that the church has to recognize the marriage. But they're absolutely trying to make the view that if you refuse to marry a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, that you're a bigot.

You also act like marriage has always been something the state or federal government was always involved in. As I said before, the federal government shouldn't care if one is married or not. States can but really don't need to either with a tax like the Fair Tax.

Why should two people need permission from the state though to marry? Marriage licenses originally came about to prevent minorities from marrying. Two people, through a church or otherwise, should just be able to take vows and be married. To the state and federal government that shouldn't matter. People can handle their property on their own. Just require notarized documents for things to be valid in the event of a dispute.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 1:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should two people need permission from the state though to marry? Marriage licenses originally came about to prevent minorities from marrying. Two people, through a church or otherwise, should just be able to take vows and be married. To the state and federal government that shouldn't matter. People can handle their property on their own. Just require notarized documents for things to be valid in the event of a dispute.
Interesting thoughts FIT. Thanks for posting that. Never thought of it that way.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 7:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well just think about it. In the days of the founders, you didn't run off to the government to register your marriage. You were just married and the community accepted it. People's affairs through transfer of property was all handled through wills and documents that were properly registered.

Now obviously the states have the right to regulate marriage however they see fit (and inversely the federal government has absolutely none). But again, I say why should they have to? Imagine the savings at both levels of government if they didn't care if we were married.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if I, a consumer, choose to buy and drive a semi-truck every day, I should be able to.
And so you are.
quote:
Now as far as emissions you may deem as dangerous, where is the federal government's authority to regulate such a thing? It doesn't exist.
I think it goes without saying that something states are inherently incapable of regulating in a reasonable fashion, falls back to the federal government. Emission standards on vehicles are a perfect example of such a thing.

To see what I mean, consider what it would be like if there was no common federal standard, and every state set its own rules and limits. Consider what it would cost for manufacturers and retailers to comply with this chaotic patchwork of regulation. Consider what happens when a vehicle crosses the border from one state into another. Consider the incredible economic and bureaucratic redundancies and burdens that would be inflicted all across the nation, as well as on interstate and international commerce in cars and car parts.

Now beyond that, also consider the fact that certain types of pollution (including air and water/groundwater) have a tendency of not remaining within the borders of any particular state. Anything that involves impacts across states (as opposed to purely intra-state), is automatically a federal matter as no single state has complete jurisdiction over such things.
quote:
If the federal government wants to regulate that, Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment to do so.
Not really. It is sufficient for Congress to pass a law. That is, after all, what Congress is primarily designed and intended to do.
quote:
I don't see why the issue of marriage has to be brought into those things at all at the federal level.
Again, because no single state has full jurisdiction in the matter. For instance, consider the case of wife and husband living in different states. Consider issues of medical access, parental rights, estate, child care and welfare, etc. and so on when applied across state boundaries and across multiple states at a time. The issues involved with marriage and parentage are not anywhere nearly as simple as just taxes. A flat tax would not make all these other factors go away.
quote:
The current administration is telling Christian chaplains in the military that they have to perform a service for whoever wants it. No matter the beliefs of their faith.
But that's more than a little different than imposing government's will on the general citizenry, isn't it?

When you sign up for military service, you agree to severe limitations upon your Constitutional rights over the duration of your service. You abrogate your rights to free speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, your fourth amendment rights, etc. So, sometimes your religion may conflict with what you're ordered to do (e.g. to violate, in cold blood and with premeditation, the Commandment not to murder...), but that's just a fact of life in the service. Back in the days of conscription, there was the option of Conscientious Objector status; with an all-volunteer military is's basically a case of selling your soul to the devil, and living with the consequences...
quote:
You also act like marriage has always been something the state or federal government was always involved in.
So what? The government was not always involved with regulation of electricity or airspace, either. Yet, here we are. Times change. We aren't a tiny little backwater with a handful of mostly-rural and self-sufficient people any longer; we're a highly-integrated modern 300 million strong industrialized nation. The rules of the Wild West don't and can't work in the modern context.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what? The government was not always involved with regulation of electricity or airspace, either. Yet, here we are. Times change. We aren't a tiny little backwater with a handful of mostly-rural and self-sufficient people any longer; we're a highly-integrated modern 300 million strong industrialized nation. The rules of the Wild West don't and can't work in the modern context.


Translation:

There should be no limits on Government power. Because we're like, big and stuff, and have err high integration and the like.

Well at least you came out and admitted what we all knew you were getting at.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There should be no limits on Government power.
Translation: there are no apparent limits to your carrying capacity for crap.

There are obvious Constitutional limits, and furthermore newsflash: you (and all the other people of the nation) constitute the ultimate limit on what Government does or doesn't do. Don't look for the Constitution to do your job for you. And don't be a sore loser when the majority of the country rejects your arguments (and at least try to be a graceful victor when the opposite transpires.)


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:46:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are obvious Constitutional limits, and furthermore newsflash: you (and all the other people of the nation) constitute the ultimate limit on what Government does or doesn't do. Don't look for the Constitution to do your job for you.


Wrong again.

The Founders knew better than anyone the dangers of a pure Democracy and sought to insulate the Government from the whims of the common voter. This is obvious to anyone with a brain and even the most basic study of history. Also they said as much in their own words.

Don't look for the Constitution to do my job for me? What kind of trollish sophomoric bullshit is that anyway? You must have no idea what you're actually saying if you thought that was an appropriate talking point.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Founders knew better than anyone the dangers of a pure Democracy and sought to insulate the Government from the whims of the common voter.
And so they did, and so it remains. But the government is not completely insulated, so if a large-enough fraction of the common voter expresses their will, the government is obligated to react, and that is so also by design (or would you deny that?)

Also, some of the Founders' motivations might not have been very laudable. They were essentially (for the most part) elitists, looking for mutual security and economic advantage and afraid of their wealth being looted by the rabble. One could even argue that not much has really changed in this regard. But that's somewhat beside the point...
quote:
Don't look for the Constitution to do my job for me? What kind of trollish sophomoric bullshit is that anyway?
Shall I remind you of the manner in which members of Congress or the President get and keep their seats, or shall I rehash the part of the First Amendment dealing with rights to peaceably assemble and petition?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reflex on 8/20/2013 5:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be fine with this so long as the costs of operating such a vehicle were entirely internalized. If you pay the cost of the fuel, including the cost of the environmental damage it does, the money spent to defend oil sources, the damage that climate change causes, and all of that is factored into the cost of a gallon at the pump, then yes, drive whatever you want.

So long as societal and environmental costs are externalized, its not a fair situation.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 1:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So long as societal and environmental costs are externalized, its not a fair situation.
As it stands, we remove or manage freedoms to make things more fair. It's the cost of living in a free but realistic society. It's a balancing act. Someone's always going to get the short end.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reflex on 8/21/2013 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, but we can make the rational choice to continue to attempt to make things more fair. And in fact historically we have consistently made that choice. Even when it stomps on the concept of absolute freedom.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By msheredy on 8/20/2013 1:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
WHO they were bashing was this administration, WHY they were bashing them was for their less than acceptable results of using tax payer money to fund energy startups.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Roffles on 8/20/2013 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 1
i'm not a rabid right wing republican, but i am a rabid auto enthusiast. and i think it's plain retarded to champion a car that hasn't even completed the first year of its first model generation. considering there are only ~12,000 in the wild, it already has too many electrical and mechanical build quality problems. just go to the various user forums and read them for yourself. there are already several break down stories that have left drivers stranded. but owners are in their honeymoon phase with this car and tesla has been extremely accommodating so you haven't heard too much about it outside of user community forums... but the fact still remains. my educated guess is that these cars will suffer terrible depreciation as the years wear them down, service warranties expire, and owners start having to foot the bill for the car's beta build qualities. You can buy a 8 year old, $100,000 mercedes S-class on Autotrader for $10,000. It's what happens when a car is considered unreliable and too expensive to fix outside of its warranty.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/20/2013 6:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can buy a 8 year old, $100,000 mercedes S-class on Autotrader for $10,000.
ROFL. No, you can't....


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Mint on 8/21/2013 7:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
Only an idiot compares a new car's cost to an 8-year old used one while also ignoring the gargantuan difference in performance and features...


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














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