101–110 of 150 posts
Brilliant marketing: 1. get people worried about something they previously didn't care about; 2. as a solution, add a new part to the car that will need frequent replacement and maintenance, thereby increasing the CLV.
If that's good or not depends on if the "something" is a real problem, right? So in this case .... https://www.google.com/search?q=human+cost+of+air+pollution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people read it too literally right now. If you say some road bollard is so strong it could survive a bomb explosion you usually don't expect bomb explosions. It's just that it survives large forces. This system stops particles as small as ones that could be used in bio weapons. It's a theoretic comparison, not a warfare ad.
> I think people read it too literally right now. Did you even read the article? It literally says this: "Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. You can literally survive a military grade bio attack by sitting in your car."
http://blog.caranddriver.com/now-you-can-spec-your-audi-a8-t...
Or cases that can literally survive a bowling ball:
http://www.yourtechreport.com/2011/04/16/protect-your-ipad-f...
You're not expected to test either one of those claims. They're just there for comparison of what the product is theoretically capable of. (or going the other way, one could complain that anything below 200mph is not ludicrous)
Brilliant marketing: 1. get people worried about something they previously didn't care about; 2. as a solution, add a new part to the car that will need frequent replacement and maintenance, thereby increasing the CLV.
Sorry, but that article has something fishy. Looking at the graph, there is something wrong. According to the graph (measurement) there is a reduction of the pollution from about 1.000 µg/m3 (minute -3) to 800 µg/m3 (minute 0) before the doors have been closed and before the system has been activated. That is a 20% reduction by nothing has changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weapons are defined by intent, not body count.
Criminal negligence doesn't require intent. If you fire your gun into the air because you are a jackass, and the bullet comes down somewhere and kills someone, the gun is still a weapon, even though you had no intent to kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a subtle but - military cannot use bioweapons due to Geneva. Only in Syria they can, but the market for Teslas there is limited. You cannot charge it, there are barely any roads left to drive it on and you will be dealing with a lot of legal to use military stuff raining on your head that Tesla has no protection from. So that is a statement that cannot be put to the test.
I'll be incredibly pedantic here - isn't it the same as saying that a car can technically go 180mph? The only place on earth where you can drive that fast legally is the German Autobahn, so for 99% of buyers it's absolutely irrelevant. So is defense against bioweapons - what this tells me, is that the car has REALLY good air filtration system, just like the fact that the max speed is 180mph tells me the car is likely…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't wait for the model 3. it will have a bear attack prevention rock as standard equipment!
Indeed. I see people complaint that this is marketing. It exactly is. Just like Steve Jobs and his jewel-style boxes. Some people enjoy paying for a good show. The biodefense is straight out from a Tarantino style: When you exaggerate enough that you can't possibly be taken seriously, but the audience starts discussing whether that's credible or not. There is a strange expectation that you can't have a good laugh abo…
I think they are not testing with small enough particles. In the article, they test with PM 2.5 particles which would be around 2.5 micro meters. However, if you look at the table on page 11 of http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/409903O/respiratory-prote... Potential bio weapons such as smallpox, anthrax, influenza and the hemorrhagic viruses are far smaller than 2.5 microns. Also, there are probably issues with the…
Sorry, but that article has something fishy. Looking at the graph, there is something wrong. According to the graph (measurement) there is a reduction of the pollution from about 1.000 µg/m3 (minute -3) to 800 µg/m3 (minute 0) before the doors have been closed and before the system has been activated. That is a 20% reduction by nothing has changed.
Possibly, when the opened the doors, cleaner air from the inside of the car mixed with the air from outside and lowered the pollution, but I'm just guessing here.
What TFA doesn't mention is where the actual pollution happens - at the factories producing batteries with dangerous chemical such as lithium, and where the electricity is produced - coal power stations, or if renewables are used, where the renewables are manufactured - for example rare earth minerals such as gallium needed for solar panels being mined in conflict zones with no environment regulation. Yes sometimes t…
Coal is certainly polluting, but "where the renewables are manufactured" doesn't make any sense — where are sunlight, rainfall, and wind "manufactured"?
Gallium is not a mineral at all or a rare-earth element, most solar panels don't contain either gallium or rare-earth elements.
Rare-earth elements are almost entirely mined in China, except for a recently reopened mine in the US, which are not usually considered "conflict zones".
Gallium is nearly half recycled, but as for mining, it's mostly mined in China, Germany, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine, of which only Ukraine is a "conflict zone" — although Nazarbayev is guilty of many human-rights abuses, there is no real insurgency there. Germany has some of the most stringent "environment regulation" in the world. Gallium primary production is actually mostly a product of aluminum production.
Earth is not a closed system: we're mostly concerned about energy here, and Earth constantly receives energy from the Sun at a rate of ten thousand times world marketed energy consumption, almost all of which is either reflected or reradiated into space as heat.
As far as I can tell, you just put a bunch of words into your comment with no concern whatsoever as to what they meant or whether any of them were true. Maybe you meant to satirize ignorant pseudo-environmentalism, but environmental damage is a real problem that needs careful discussion. Posting paragraphs of lies, as you did here, is a bad thing to do, because it effectively reduces the intelligence of the people who read your comments — it confuses them to the point that they are less able to make effective decisions.
Please don't post things like this any more.