Amazon launching satellites into space is about eliminating competition, not increasing it. They're not doing it because it will allow more people to compete with them.
Clearly if Amazon and Facebook can do it, they have to let everyone who wants to for the same purpose. Eventually every app will have it's own set of hundreds of satellites.
How many regional power companies sell you appliances and give you a better deal on electricity if you buy their products? Oh that's right, they're not allowed to do that.
Cruise ships will cough up what their passengers are willing to cough up. They're not going to spend more money unless their passengers do or unless it helps them get more passengers and it turns a profit.
Agreed, any wait at all for the response to come makes voip unworkable. If you think about it, usually "turns" in a regular conversation are microseconds apart.
Why do you think we're suggesting that we throw those things away? Even under programs like UBI you still earn more if you work, and even more still if you innovate.
If over the next 50 years there are 50 companies that can afford satellites, will we have the room to put their in space and compete on an even footing?
Back when they made laws that TV networks couldn't sell products themselves, what happened to all that? It seems this is a more extreme case of that. Companies that sell products launching their own satellites? Why did we create those laws for the networks in the first place if we're just going to throw any semblance of fair competition out the window and create a new corporate world order now?
Well if that happens then good luck to anyone ever wanting to compete on a level playing field again. The companies that are setting up satellites will gain a permanent global market dominance instantly.
As long as this product competes fairly with all other products and said company doesn't use it to unfairly advertise to or unduly influence any segment of society to their own products, then I'm all for this. Otherwise this will just turn into the same situation of Spotify versus Apple, where Spotify is automatically at a competitive disadvantage, but now it's because they can't afford their own satellites.
If only there were large platforms capable of having a large carefully selected panel of people connect to them and look at media to determine in a fair and balanced way whether content is 'violent' or not.
I think if you compared most very expensive vehicles, you would find that the owners are careful with them. Also, keep in mind that there are fewer Teslas on the road so fewer chances of other people hitting them, which would pad the stats.
Tesla wouldn't compare easy driving miles where Autopilot does work to harder miles where it doesn't would they? I'm assuming in your stats they only compared miles where people can use Autopilot? Also if a person didn't activate Autopilot that day in a certain place because there was a circumstance like construction they shouldn't compare that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
How will I own any of my data if I don't have a place in my house to store it all?
Amazon launching satellites into space is about eliminating competition, not increasing it. They're not doing it because it will allow more people to compete with them.
Clearly if Amazon and Facebook can do it, they have to let everyone who wants to for the same purpose. Eventually every app will have it's own set of hundreds of satellites.
For example, the oil industry isn't a monopoly but how many gas stations do you see charging 5 cents less per gallon than everyone else?
A small conglomerate that has satellites will be every close to a monopoly.
Wouldn't it make most of those connections at once, there by taking the latency hit once for page in theory?
How many regional power companies sell you appliances and give you a better deal on electricity if you buy their products? Oh that's right, they're not allowed to do that.
Cruise ships will cough up what their passengers are willing to cough up. They're not going to spend more money unless their passengers do or unless it helps them get more passengers and it turns a profit.
1) Not everyone can afford satellites, and
2) By the time a few companies build theirs, there will be no room for others.
Agreed, any wait at all for the response to come makes voip unworkable. If you think about it, usually "turns" in a regular conversation are microseconds apart.
Why do you think we're suggesting that we throw those things away? Even under programs like UBI you still earn more if you work, and even more still if you innovate.
If over the next 50 years there are 50 companies that can afford satellites, will we have the room to put their in space and compete on an even footing?
Like I said, i'm all for that. But not at the cost of handing corporations the keys to global domination.
Mark my words, this will create the corporate world order that everyone fears.
Back when they made laws that TV networks couldn't sell products themselves, what happened to all that? It seems this is a more extreme case of that. Companies that sell products launching their own satellites? Why did we create those laws for the networks in the first place if we're just going to throw any semblance of fair competition out the window and create a new corporate world order now?
Well if that happens then good luck to anyone ever wanting to compete on a level playing field again. The companies that are setting up satellites will gain a permanent global market dominance instantly.
As long as this product competes fairly with all other products and said company doesn't use it to unfairly advertise to or unduly influence any segment of society to their own products, then I'm all for this. Otherwise this will just turn into the same situation of Spotify versus Apple, where Spotify is automatically at a competitive disadvantage, but now it's because they can't afford their own satellites.
You'd need something fairly social for that, on a network. Maybe one day.
If only there were large platforms capable of having a large carefully selected panel of people connect to them and look at media to determine in a fair and balanced way whether content is 'violent' or not.
I was thinking incorrectly with that last line. Posting before coffee.
I think if you compared most very expensive vehicles, you would find that the owners are careful with them. Also, keep in mind that there are fewer Teslas on the road so fewer chances of other people hitting them, which would pad the stats.
What? They're saying the technology isn't ready yet and we should slow down with development because people may die? Say it ain't so!
I'll go with the companies that don't sell flamethrowers on the side, thanks.
Again, article did not explain the methodology used for this study. Sorry but I don't trust Tesla or Musk to do a study properly.
Tesla wouldn't compare easy driving miles where Autopilot does work to harder miles where it doesn't would they? I'm assuming in your stats they only compared miles where people can use Autopilot? Also if a person didn't activate Autopilot that day in a certain place because there was a circumstance like construction they shouldn't compare that as well.
Wouldn't most people with EVs be in the big cities? I guess a better question is, how many people with EVs in Karasjok versus everywhere else?