Really? Then, why aren't there any at that price point? I am unaware of any sub $200 netbooks. I just don't see how you can keep the price under $200 if you are paying a Windows licensing fee.
Make that a 10-12 inch screen. The earlier screen were really too darned small.
Then it is a cheap, small laptop. At that size, there is no way that consumers are going to perceive it as a different category of device from a laptop. In which case, a significant number of people are going to buy it thinking that it is a laptop substitute and be angry that it is underpowered (and doesn't run Windows, because I don't see how you can reach the price point--under $200--and run Windows).
Very good point. I was just talking to a friend of mine who is fairly computer savvy. He was out looking to buy a mobile computing device (laptop, netbook, tablet) for his son for school this fall. He has NO interest in an Apple device and little interest in an Android device. He wants something that can sync up with his MS Office applications on his desktop (including Outlook). He does not believe that an Android device can do that. He won't buy an Apple device. He is very interested in the HP Windows 7 tablet and may wait for that to come to his local store before buying.
I was surprised by how strongly he felt against Android devices, but I was unable to convince him to reconsider. I suspect he represents a significant market. He has a spotty record on predicting future technology trends. When we have agreed on the way a new technology trend would play out, we have never been wrong. When we have disagreed, he has almost always been wrong (although that does not mean that I was correct, often we were both wrong). When, like now, we have disagreed but he has made an argument I find somewhat convincing (although I think it is missing some things), he has been right about as often as he has been wrong.
The netbook is not dead, although manufacturers are trying to kill them because the profit margin is thinner than they would like. Personally, I think the netbook market would be significantly bigger, except for the fact that nobody seems to want to make dirt cheap one. I firmly believe that if a manufacturer were willing to make a sub $200 netbook with a 7-9 inch screen, they would develop a solid following. They would need to be perfectly upfront in their marketing that this was not a laptop replacement.
I am completely disappointed by this move by Tesla. I do not believe that the technology is there yet for an all electric drive car to be an everyday car for average Americans. I believe that this move by Tesla indicates that Tesla will not have the money to develop such a car and that the company is based on government subsidies.
So far there is not a single successful electric car on the market that has succeeded on its strength as a car-
So far, Tesla has not turned a profit. That means that so far there is no need to add any conditions to your statement as I quoted it. Until Tesla turns a profit, or some other company sells an electric car that makes a profit without government subsidies, that will still be true. I thought that the idea of leveraging the sales of a boutique car to develop the technology to make a successful ordinary car had promise. Tesla has decided to give up on that route. The Model S is an ordinary high end car, except for the fact that it is electric.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit without government subsidies. I really thought that Tesla was going to be a successful car company, but without the boutique model, there is nothing that sets them apart enough to compete with established car companies with much deeper pockets. If the time comes when it is profitable to sell full electric cars, one or more of the major car compaines will eat Tesla's lunch (unless of course one of them buys Tesla instead).
I said it was only a matter of time before they close their doors, not that they were closing. I believe that statement to be true. Without the Roadster as the flagship model, Tesla has nothing to recommend it versus larger car companies with much deeper pockets. If it becomes profitable to make and sell electric cars, someone like Toyota will end up owning that market and Tesla will be unable to compete. The only chance that Tesla had of continuing as an automobile manufacturer was as the maker of aboutique car. They may have been able to leverage that position to, also, successfully sell more ordinary vehicles, but without the boutique model, there is not enough cache in buying a Tesla to support the company vs Toyota (Lexus) and/or other major car companies.
I have seen the Model S. There is nothing about it that makes it stand out from the crowd, except the fact that it is electric. The Tesla Roadster had the cache of, "See, I've got a Tesla Roadster." When you saw one, it was unique looking, you knew it was somethign unusual. The Model S looks much the same as the general run of cars in its price class. Considering that the Tesla Roadster had performance charateristics that were slightly subpar for that price class, I do not see how the Model S will not, also, have performance characteristics that are slightly subpar for that price class.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit, without government subsidies.
As far as I know, Tesla has yet to turn a profit. The Roadster was a car that stood out and that sold to people who could afford to buy a car just for that. The Model S is nothing special, at its price point, and not particularly distinct looking.
I find it hard to believe that the Model S is competitive in performance at its price range, considering that the Roadster was barely competitive with cars of that price range.
I did not say they were closing. I said their business model had failed. Perhaps I misunderstood their business plan, but I really thought that Tesla had a chance to succeed in the electric car market. I thought that the idea of leveraging sales of a boutique model electric car in order to pay for the development costs of an affordable model electric car made sense. Tesla has yet to make a profit, yet they are discontinuing the boutique car in favor of an ordinary luxury car. They had not yet reached the point where they were able to satisfy the demand for the boutique car and now are switching to a car that is a much harder sell. The model S is nothing special, except that it is electric. it isn't even unique enough looking that people will know you are driving an electrci car. Why would you buy one over a BMW, Mercedes, or Audi?
Yes, that's right, Tesla will be building a car that competes with $20,000 sedans and selling it for $58K. The Roadster was a good idea because it was a boutique car. People do not buy boutique cars because of the value, but because of the statement they make. The Tesla Roadster was a car that handled well enough that when combined with the cool factor of driving an electric car allowed it to compete with other $100,000 cars. Except that apparently it didn't.
The Model S is going to be competing with several models from BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, and others. I just don't see it. People who buy cars in that price range buy a car for performance, ride quality, or snob appeal. I don't see how the Model S makes it in that market. People buy $100,000 cars to have something unique.
I thought that Tesla's idea of developing a boutique car and using the publicity and earnings from it to pay for developing an affordable car made sense. Now that they are discontinuing the Roadster, I cannot see any logic whereby the company will compete as a car manufacturer. They may succeed as a supplier of parts to other manufacturers, but I do not believe they will stick around as an automobile manufacturer.
When the premiums go through the roof on an individual who keeps screwing up, then the patent office will have a good incentive to fire him.
Why? It is just taxpayers money. There is always more where that came from.
No, I don't really beleive that, but many government workers seem to operate as if they do.
What they think they will accomplish is to gradually get people used to the idea. Then they will be able to supress websites that support controversial political positions (such as, that shariah law should NOT be enforced in Britain).
Re:This is seriously a world first?!!??
on
USB Foot Controls
·
· Score: 1, Informative
FTFA:
this controller is one of the first we've ever seen that sits on the floor
Which means that the people who wrote the article are idiots. Foot controllers have been used by transcriptionists for years to control the playback of the audio they are transcribing. Transcriptionists have been using foot controllers since at least 2000 (that is when I first had some interaction with that industry).
Odors are not light. The sense of smell is designed to inform of the presence of certain chemicals (whether as a warning or as an enticement). Therefore, the sensory receptors for smell respond to a wide range of chemicals that often have little or no relation to each other.
There is no way for anyone else to identify which of your music files are legal. All that is possible is to identify that certain music files are illegal (because they contain certain "watermarks" that indicate they come from a source that you could not have legal access to). And even there there is room for argument. For example, it is not clear how the courts would rule on a case where you downloaded a copy of a file that you owned on CD rather than ripping it from the CD. There is some question as to whether possessing music files that were illegally copied is actually illegal.
I wouldn't want to discount the disparity of post-collegiate professional opportunities in this discussion, since a pretty large number of college sports participants aren't doing it just for entertainment.
The sports being cut are things like men's crew. Exactly what post-collegiate professional opportunities are there for someone who rows on a crew team in college? The schools I am talking about are cutting men's sports because,even with offering scholarships to women athletes, they are having trouble finding as many women interested in participating in college sports as men who are interested in participating without the incentive of a scholarship.
Perhaps you are unaware that many colleges have had to cut a significant number of men's sports to meet Title IX requirements because they could not get enough women interested in playing sports to match the number of men in their men's sports programs. That is, a smaller percentage of college women have an interest in playing college sports than the percentage of college men with such an interest.
So, it is pretty clear that women's entertainment interests are significantly different than men's. I am a fairly good judge of the types of movies and books that women will like and could with some effort lay out the elements to put into one of either if one's goal is to appeal to women. I have a much harder time imagining how those elements can be used to create a video game. That is not to say that it cannot be done, just that I have trouble seeing how to make a game out of those elements (although SIMS seems to be the right approach).
Actually, all that the evidence shows is that slave labor is economically viable in that situation. It would be interesting to see what would have happened in those situations if someone had put as much effort into promoting voluntary immigration as a labor force as was put into acquiring slaves in those circumstances where slave labor was used successfully.
Sorry, but there were plenty of countries that tried communism and that turned out appalling and oppressive for 99% of the population that were not occupied by the Soviets after WWII. Including, the Soviet Union itself. You may want to look up some of the following, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Yugoslavia, China.
I am pretty sure this happened as a result of a problem that is endemic with law enforcement. A large percentage of people in law enforcement have come to believe that all people that they interact with are criminals who are acting to keep law enforcement from discovering the evidence to convict that person and/or others. As a result, they did not trust the hosting company to work with them to obtain all of the data of the target of their investigation.
The proper way to have done this would have been to go in with someone from the FBI who was technically proficient who would then work with the hosting company to isolate and migrate all of the virtual machines containing the target's data to a single server (or several, if that was necessary) and seize that server(s).
You do know that Paul Ryan is a Tea Party hero? That Ron Paul and Rand Paul are well received by members of the Tea Parties? None of these people are considered to be strong defenders of the status quo of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, what government programs are the Tea Partiers supposed to be defending that they profit from?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Then, why aren't there any at that price point? I am unaware of any sub $200 netbooks. I just don't see how you can keep the price under $200 if you are paying a Windows licensing fee.
Make that a 10-12 inch screen. The earlier screen were really too darned small.
Then it is a cheap, small laptop. At that size, there is no way that consumers are going to perceive it as a different category of device from a laptop. In which case, a significant number of people are going to buy it thinking that it is a laptop substitute and be angry that it is underpowered (and doesn't run Windows, because I don't see how you can reach the price point--under $200--and run Windows).
Very good point. I was just talking to a friend of mine who is fairly computer savvy. He was out looking to buy a mobile computing device (laptop, netbook, tablet) for his son for school this fall. He has NO interest in an Apple device and little interest in an Android device. He wants something that can sync up with his MS Office applications on his desktop (including Outlook). He does not believe that an Android device can do that. He won't buy an Apple device. He is very interested in the HP Windows 7 tablet and may wait for that to come to his local store before buying.
I was surprised by how strongly he felt against Android devices, but I was unable to convince him to reconsider. I suspect he represents a significant market. He has a spotty record on predicting future technology trends. When we have agreed on the way a new technology trend would play out, we have never been wrong. When we have disagreed, he has almost always been wrong (although that does not mean that I was correct, often we were both wrong). When, like now, we have disagreed but he has made an argument I find somewhat convincing (although I think it is missing some things), he has been right about as often as he has been wrong.
The netbook is not dead, although manufacturers are trying to kill them because the profit margin is thinner than they would like. Personally, I think the netbook market would be significantly bigger, except for the fact that nobody seems to want to make dirt cheap one. I firmly believe that if a manufacturer were willing to make a sub $200 netbook with a 7-9 inch screen, they would develop a solid following. They would need to be perfectly upfront in their marketing that this was not a laptop replacement.
I am completely disappointed by this move by Tesla. I do not believe that the technology is there yet for an all electric drive car to be an everyday car for average Americans. I believe that this move by Tesla indicates that Tesla will not have the money to develop such a car and that the company is based on government subsidies.
So far there is not a single successful electric car on the market that has succeeded on its strength as a car-
So far, Tesla has not turned a profit. That means that so far there is no need to add any conditions to your statement as I quoted it. Until Tesla turns a profit, or some other company sells an electric car that makes a profit without government subsidies, that will still be true. I thought that the idea of leveraging the sales of a boutique car to develop the technology to make a successful ordinary car had promise. Tesla has decided to give up on that route. The Model S is an ordinary high end car, except for the fact that it is electric.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit without government subsidies. I really thought that Tesla was going to be a successful car company, but without the boutique model, there is nothing that sets them apart enough to compete with established car companies with much deeper pockets. If the time comes when it is profitable to sell full electric cars, one or more of the major car compaines will eat Tesla's lunch (unless of course one of them buys Tesla instead).
I said it was only a matter of time before they close their doors, not that they were closing. I believe that statement to be true. Without the Roadster as the flagship model, Tesla has nothing to recommend it versus larger car companies with much deeper pockets. If it becomes profitable to make and sell electric cars, someone like Toyota will end up owning that market and Tesla will be unable to compete. The only chance that Tesla had of continuing as an automobile manufacturer was as the maker of aboutique car. They may have been able to leverage that position to, also, successfully sell more ordinary vehicles, but without the boutique model, there is not enough cache in buying a Tesla to support the company vs Toyota (Lexus) and/or other major car companies.
I have seen the Model S. There is nothing about it that makes it stand out from the crowd, except the fact that it is electric. The Tesla Roadster had the cache of, "See, I've got a Tesla Roadster." When you saw one, it was unique looking, you knew it was somethign unusual. The Model S looks much the same as the general run of cars in its price class. Considering that the Tesla Roadster had performance charateristics that were slightly subpar for that price class, I do not see how the Model S will not, also, have performance characteristics that are slightly subpar for that price class.
Get back to me when Tesla turns a profit, without government subsidies.
As far as I know, Tesla has yet to turn a profit. The Roadster was a car that stood out and that sold to people who could afford to buy a car just for that. The Model S is nothing special, at its price point, and not particularly distinct looking.
I find it hard to believe that the Model S is competitive in performance at its price range, considering that the Roadster was barely competitive with cars of that price range.
I read the article. If Tesla is no longer making the Roadster, they will receive a lot less buzz because the Model S is boring.
I did not say they were closing. I said their business model had failed. Perhaps I misunderstood their business plan, but I really thought that Tesla had a chance to succeed in the electric car market. I thought that the idea of leveraging sales of a boutique model electric car in order to pay for the development costs of an affordable model electric car made sense. Tesla has yet to make a profit, yet they are discontinuing the boutique car in favor of an ordinary luxury car. They had not yet reached the point where they were able to satisfy the demand for the boutique car and now are switching to a car that is a much harder sell. The model S is nothing special, except that it is electric. it isn't even unique enough looking that people will know you are driving an electrci car. Why would you buy one over a BMW, Mercedes, or Audi?
Yes, that's right, Tesla will be building a car that competes with $20,000 sedans and selling it for $58K. The Roadster was a good idea because it was a boutique car. People do not buy boutique cars because of the value, but because of the statement they make. The Tesla Roadster was a car that handled well enough that when combined with the cool factor of driving an electric car allowed it to compete with other $100,000 cars. Except that apparently it didn't.
The Model S is going to be competing with several models from BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, and others. I just don't see it. People who buy cars in that price range buy a car for performance, ride quality, or snob appeal. I don't see how the Model S makes it in that market. People buy $100,000 cars to have something unique.
I thought that Tesla's idea of developing a boutique car and using the publicity and earnings from it to pay for developing an affordable car made sense. Now that they are discontinuing the Roadster, I cannot see any logic whereby the company will compete as a car manufacturer. They may succeed as a supplier of parts to other manufacturers, but I do not believe they will stick around as an automobile manufacturer.
When the premiums go through the roof on an individual who keeps screwing up, then the patent office will have a good incentive to fire him.
Why? It is just taxpayers money. There is always more where that came from.
No, I don't really beleive that, but many government workers seem to operate as if they do.
Fortunately, they already addressed that. In Britain, if you reach for your gun, they will put you in jail.
What they think they will accomplish is to gradually get people used to the idea. Then they will be able to supress websites that support controversial political positions (such as, that shariah law should NOT be enforced in Britain).
FTFA:
this controller is one of the first we've ever seen that sits on the floor
Which means that the people who wrote the article are idiots. Foot controllers have been used by transcriptionists for years to control the playback of the audio they are transcribing. Transcriptionists have been using foot controllers since at least 2000 (that is when I first had some interaction with that industry).
Odors are not light. The sense of smell is designed to inform of the presence of certain chemicals (whether as a warning or as an enticement). Therefore, the sensory receptors for smell respond to a wide range of chemicals that often have little or no relation to each other.
There is no way for anyone else to identify which of your music files are legal. All that is possible is to identify that certain music files are illegal (because they contain certain "watermarks" that indicate they come from a source that you could not have legal access to). And even there there is room for argument. For example, it is not clear how the courts would rule on a case where you downloaded a copy of a file that you owned on CD rather than ripping it from the CD. There is some question as to whether possessing music files that were illegally copied is actually illegal.
I wouldn't want to discount the disparity of post-collegiate professional opportunities in this discussion, since a pretty large number of college sports participants aren't doing it just for entertainment.
The sports being cut are things like men's crew. Exactly what post-collegiate professional opportunities are there for someone who rows on a crew team in college? The schools I am talking about are cutting men's sports because,even with offering scholarships to women athletes, they are having trouble finding as many women interested in participating in college sports as men who are interested in participating without the incentive of a scholarship.
Perhaps you are unaware that many colleges have had to cut a significant number of men's sports to meet Title IX requirements because they could not get enough women interested in playing sports to match the number of men in their men's sports programs. That is, a smaller percentage of college women have an interest in playing college sports than the percentage of college men with such an interest.
So, it is pretty clear that women's entertainment interests are significantly different than men's. I am a fairly good judge of the types of movies and books that women will like and could with some effort lay out the elements to put into one of either if one's goal is to appeal to women. I have a much harder time imagining how those elements can be used to create a video game. That is not to say that it cannot be done, just that I have trouble seeing how to make a game out of those elements (although SIMS seems to be the right approach).
Actually, all that the evidence shows is that slave labor is economically viable in that situation. It would be interesting to see what would have happened in those situations if someone had put as much effort into promoting voluntary immigration as a labor force as was put into acquiring slaves in those circumstances where slave labor was used successfully.
Sorry, but there were plenty of countries that tried communism and that turned out appalling and oppressive for 99% of the population that were not occupied by the Soviets after WWII. Including, the Soviet Union itself. You may want to look up some of the following, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Yugoslavia, China.
I am pretty sure this happened as a result of a problem that is endemic with law enforcement. A large percentage of people in law enforcement have come to believe that all people that they interact with are criminals who are acting to keep law enforcement from discovering the evidence to convict that person and/or others. As a result, they did not trust the hosting company to work with them to obtain all of the data of the target of their investigation.
The proper way to have done this would have been to go in with someone from the FBI who was technically proficient who would then work with the hosting company to isolate and migrate all of the virtual machines containing the target's data to a single server (or several, if that was necessary) and seize that server(s).
You do know that Paul Ryan is a Tea Party hero? That Ron Paul and Rand Paul are well received by members of the Tea Parties? None of these people are considered to be strong defenders of the status quo of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, what government programs are the Tea Partiers supposed to be defending that they profit from?