Because it was popular before Clarkson et al (for 25 years, no less) and stands a decent chance of being popular again, and this time with a wider audience.
Given how successful the show was I think your notion of it appealing to an even wider audience is wishful thinking. The audience was already incredibly wide. Even people like my sister who could not care less about cars found the show entertaining.
The show has been on air in various incarnations since 1977 but it wasn't a breakout hit until 2002 when they found the combination of Clarkson, May and Hammond. I'm sure it will soldier on but it's going to be difficult to catch lightning in a bottle twice.
It was May and Hammond who carried it, and maybe the other new presenters will carry Evans.
Jeremy was undeniably the star of the show but not in the usual sense. What really made the show work was the chemistry between all three of them. Jeremy was kind of a first among equals but take away May and Hammond and it just didn't work as well. That's a hard thing to replicate. Take the US version of Top Gear. All three of the hosts aren't Ferrera, Foust and Wood are all fine individually but they simply don't have the same chemistry as Clarkson, May and Hammond and the show simply isn't as good as a result.
The other thing that made Top Gear work and I think Clarkson was the driving force behind is because they didn't pull a lot of punches. Whether you agreed with their take on something or not, they definitely HAD a take and didn't seem to hold back much. Clarkson seems to be the driving force behind that. If they thought some million dollar supercar was crap, they said so. They didn't pretend to be fair, or objective or even competent but they did seem to say what they thought. Frankly their negative reviews were usually more interesting than their positive ones. Other shows like the US Top Gear version seem to be more hesitant to give a bad review, presumably for fear of pissing off advertisers or incurring lawsuits. But without those strong takes the show just isn't as good.
Considering Clarkson's record on international diplomacy and pissing off the natives, is a world tour really a good idea?
He only pisses off the natives that were already pissed off before he got there. Particularly those who lack any sort of sense of humor, perspective or ability to laugh at themselves.
Even companies who caught the mobile revolution early at various points couldn't prosper. I remember when Nokia looked unstoppable, and later RIM / Blackberry.
That's because those companies got complacent and made some huge strategic errors without having the cash reserves to work through them. Microsoft has had it's share of mistakes and complacency but it has a FAR stronger balance sheet than RIM or Nokia ever did. Windows and Office were/are/remain phenomenal cash cows and they insulate Microsoft from many of their errors. At this point Microsoft has so much cash that they could simply hopscotch into a completely different industry if they needed to. They have enough cash to buy Fortune 100 companies outright without issuing a single share of stock. RIM and Nokia never got even close to a balance sheet that strong.
Remember when people said that MS missed the mobile revolution and was going to die. Good times.
Only people who said that were people who couldn't read a balance sheet. There are scenarios where they might struggle but realistically any company with enough cash to buy both Ford and GM outright isn't going away. They might change to something unrecognizable from their current form but they wont disappear. Windows might be doomed. Office might be doomed. But Microsoft isn't going away anytime soon unless they pull an Enron.
Then theres the issue of beyond visual range engagements, which is where most of the action happens these days and where missiles excel.
Except when you need to actually have positive target identification. Shooting a missile over the horizon can work but it's a lot harder to be certain you aren't blowing up the wrong target. Missiles have gotten better but target ID is still and problem and they still put guns on fighters for a reason. The F22 has a 20mm cannon and they aren't getting rid of it in the near future.
Plus direct line of sight for a laser system can be beyond visual range for a human eye.
If your fighter carries a laser and no missiles you better hope your laser can shoot down their missiles, which they will be firing at you from over the horizon where your laser cannot reach.
3D printing is very effective for complicated shapes that you can't make with other techniques, or only at very high cost.
No argument except that there are rather few products that fit that description. The percent of products where 3D printing is the most economical method is extremely small in comparison with the size of the the overall manufacturing market.
And while volume for individual products is low, it adds up to a decent combined total, especially when you consider the much higher margins on low-volume items.
Partly correct but I'm not sure you've thought it through entirely. As a general proposition it's pretty cheap for companies to make and store small quantities of products. If someone happens to have a 3D printer capable of printing the material for that specific product then it might make sense but very few will have a 3D printer that can print plastic and another for aluminum and another for steel and etc etc... If the product involves multiple materials, currently 3D printing is immediately off the table in most cases. I expect that will change someday but that day is a long time away still.
3D printing is useful in some specific circumstances but it's been around a long time and it's going to take several more decades to really become mainstream. I was working with 3D printers in my day job 20 years ago. We had some big Stratasys units for doing plastic prototypes. The state of the art has advanced but not as far as many think. It's still very expensive to do production quality products out of a 3D printer and it's useless for volume production.
As for margins, I think I can speak to that. I'm a certified accountant. One mistake people make is in thinking that costs have any relationship to selling price. A customer's willingness to pay doesn't necessarily go up because it costs you more to make it. Just because I can build something for $X doesn't mean I can necessarily sell it for more than $X. Just because something is low volume doesn't necessarily mean the margins are fat on it. I run a manufacturing company that specializes in low volume production and we often run into jobs where there is no margin at all or even negative margin on very small unit volume.
For comparison, this year the industry will reach nearly $7.3 billion, and by 2020, it is expected to reach nearly $21 billion.
That sounds like a lot (and it is) but compared to the overall manufacturing market it's virtually a rounding error. The US manufacturing sector alone is something close to $2 Trillion and the US accounts for something like 17% of global manufacturing. (China is somewhere around $3 Trillion currently and Japan is around $800 Billion) For reference $7.3 billion is just a bit smaller than the total revenue of eBay. Impressive but hardly world shaking.
Here's an impressive stat: 3D printing represents only 0.04% of the global manufacturing market right now. However, if 3D printing captures 5% of global manufacturing capacity, which researcher firm Wohlers Associates believes it will, the industry would be worth a staggering $640 billion.
That's a common argument made to justify silly valuations of new companies and technologies. "If we capture just 1% of this huge market..." while conveniently ignoring how difficult actually doing that will be. Capturing just a few percent doesn't sound like a lot but actually it really is a monumental task. 3D printing has tremendous potential and I expect it to really be a huge deal in the coming years but it's going to be a while before it captures even 1% of global manufacturing, much less 5%.
A lot of manufacturing is not aided at all by 3D printing. For example my company makes wire harnesses. 3D printing is useful in our industry for some fixtures, prototypes and the odd bit of tooling but it's a wildly inefficient way to make a wire harness or any sizeable quantity of the parts that go into one. There are other technologies that are far more cost effective for volume production. That's not to say 3D printing isn't super helpful but it's not even close to replacing even a fraction of a percent of what we do. Same is true for plenty of other manufacturing technologies. 3D printing is great for low volume production and while I expect it to speed up, there are other ways to make things that often are much more economical and/or effective which 3D printing will struggle to displace.
The "subsidies" that the looney left yell about all the time are standard tax breaks available to manufacturers in the US.
Speaking as both an accountant and someone who runs a manufacturing company, that is not even close to correct. There are a lot of tax breaks the fossil fuel industry gets that are quite specific to their particular industry and not applicable to other commodity manufacturers.
Fossil fuel subsidies were over $500 Billion globally in 2011 and that doesn't account for the cost of mitigating the full cost of the pollution they cause.
As someone said years before on Slashdot, "carbon credits" or any sort of carbon tax is nothing more than a scam by the ultra rich to make you and me live like bugs.
A carbon tax is not some big plot by rich people. It's a way to put an economic value on the cost of dealing with the pollution created by fossil fuels. It's no different in principle from forcing a manufacturer to pay for the cost of cleaning up a byproduct of their production process. Right now the fossil fuel industry is basically allowed to dump certain of their pollutants into the air without further financial consequence. The goal of incentivizing companies and individuals to pollute less is a good one in principle but difficult to pull off in practice.
Carbon credits are a silly political compromise and so far are largely ineffective (for several reasons but mostly because they issue too many of them) but it isn't a scam either. Carbon credits aren't as effective as a straight tax but unlike a tax they are politically palatable even though the net effect is substantially the same. Call something a tax and people freak out but give them something that has the same effect but isn't a direct tax and they calm down because nobody is saying the magical bad word "tax'.
Why not just end the fossil fuel subsidies?
That would be a nice start but it still doesn't cover the cost of the pollution that fossil fuels generate. Right now we not only don't make the oil and gas companies pay for the full cost of their pollution but we actually pay them (subsidies) to generate it! That's bonkers.
1) eliminate the health care companies. We need direct pay!
The costs are too large to not have either insurance companies or the government involved. The majority of Americans would be bankrupted by a single major surgery and that would be true even if healthcare costs weren't completely out of hand.
2) eliminate the AMA. There are not enough doctors. Patients are dying in the emergency room waiting to be seen.
First off, the AMA has nothing to do with the quantity of doctors. They do not directly control the supply of doctors and in fact the number of medical schools has been increasing in the last decade. Second, there is no epidemic of patients "dying in the ER waiting to be seen". Emergency Departments (they aren't typically called Emergency Rooms because - well, they're not a room) are actually quite good at triaging patients and taking care of those in greatest need first. There is however the problem of people coming to the Emergency Department for conditions that clearly are NOT emergencies because our screwed up system gives them no other options.
3) kill all malpractice lawyers. A doctor practising in good faith should never ever be sued
And exactly how do you plan to distinguish between doctors acting in good faith and those that aren't? While the vast majority of doctors are good, hard working people who care greatly about their patients, there are exceptions. Furthermore there sometimes are doctors of questionable competence. An incompetent person acting in good faith is just as dangerous as a competent person acting in bad faith. Either one is dangerous and there has to be a mechanism for dealing with them.
4) curtail the power of the FDA. The FDA does more harm than good.
Spare me. While nobody would argue that the FDA is without problems, the FDA is one of the most successful and vital government organizations we have. Their prime directive is to actually make sure that medical treatments actually work before they can be sold to the public. Without the FDA you would have absurd levels of quackery and fake "treatments" being sold to people who don't know any better. One merely has to look at the market for "alternative medicine" (particularly homeopathy) to see what would happen. You know what they call alternative medicine that is proven to work? Medicine.
There is no difference between big government and big corporations. You do not want you health care being run by the insurance companies or the government.
If you think there is no difference between government and business you don't understand either one adequately. There are no other payment options available without involving either insurance or government. Most countries have (sensibly) picked the government option since EVERYONE needs health care at some point but insurance can be made to work. But unless you are privately wealthy there aren't any third options. Your notion of everyone paying directly is pure fantasy because the costs are and will remain too high to be feasible.
Two things. Full color. Video capable update speeds. No? Pass.
Does every book you read have full color and "video capable update speed"? How about signs? Posters? Indicator displays? Meters? Calculators? No they don't. Some applications need color and/or video. Many more do not. It's idiotic and wasteful to insist on technology not appropriate or optimized for a given task.
Seriously, don't be so daft as to think every display needs to be some power hungry 4K color video display. In fact there are a lot of applications where the display you describe would actually reduce its capability. An ebook reader doesn't need color video to display text.
Actually, it's the other way around. If any significant percentage of customers are plugging in and unplugging 3.5mm plugs several times per day, then replacing those with much-more-fragile USB-C connectors dramatically reduces the reliability of the device for that percentage of your customers.
Let's assume what you are saying is true for a moment. You don't have data but your supposition is a logical one. However it's also incomplete. You're forgetting a few important facts because you are only considering the failure modes from repeated connections of the connector. That's important but there are other failure modes to consider. Failures from dust/water entry into the device. Failures of the extra electronics. Failures of the software to manage the extra hardware. Etc (this isn't an exhaustive list) The list of failures does not stop at and may not be dominated by # connections. Further if the MTBF for USB-C substantially exceeds the typical time of ownership then it is a moot issue for most people.
You also have to consider what the cost of each of these failure modes. I'm pretty sure Apple and other smartphone makers have copious data about the various failure modes and their relative costs. A failure mode might be infrequent but expensive to mitigate. Failures have to be weighed against the costs they create. Its not merely a question of frequency but also severity and difficulty/cost to mitigate.
No, it isn't even slightly like that. People bought PCs with floppy drives, and something like one percent of them used them more often than once a year.
The floppy drive was obsolete LONG before that become the case. There were technologically better options commonly available by the early 1990s and yet floppy drives limped on for another decade and were still in shockingly common use until the late 1990s. Software was still routinely installed by floppy disk even as late as 2000. It wasn't until the late 90s before software became most commonly distributed on CD.
And even if the adapter were only $5 (instead of a more typical $20 early adopter penalty), every affected customer would still pay a lot more for even a single adapter than they would for the 15-cent headphone jack.
By separating the headphone jack you are letting those who want one a means to pay for it without imposing the cost of it on others who have no need for it. If it is worth $5 (or $15) to you then you should be willing to pay that. The makers of these devices aren't running a charity. If customers really do turn out to want one then either it will find its way back on the the device (unlikely) or people will migrate over time to other options. In the mean time we find out what the real economic value of that particular feature is.
In those 52 years, that connector has not changed significantly, despite many, many companies trying to do so. It isn't going to magically go away just because a couple of badly misguided consumer electronics companies think it it is out of date....
Nobody is claiming the jack will disappear entirely. It won't. But there is no reason it necessarily needs to stay on your smartphone if its cost exceeds its utility. We seem to be getting close to that point if we haven't passed it already. I'm sure some smartphones will still come with a headphone jack for those who still want one. Others won't and I'm reasonably confident that the ones that don't have one won't miss it very much. Personally I'd rather the space currently devoted to a headphone jack be used for more battery instead but that's just me. The headphone jack is (near as makes no difference) a unitasker on a device that by its very design is supposed to be multi-function. A single purpose connector really doesn't make any sense on a compact mobile computer.
Volvo has the tradition of over-engineering. Perhaps they just noticed how hard the problem is to solve perfectly, or at least near to their standards.
Yes they do. Which is a big part of why they are still a minor player in the auto industry. They make over-engineered, somewhat dowdy looking cars that appeal to a relatively narrow niche. Volvo, very much like Saab, has a really hard time going outside their engineering focused comfort zone. The notion of doing something radically beyond what is currently possible I think is an interference fit with their corporate culture.
Volvo's customers have fourteen models to chose from.
So what? The Model S out sells most of those models and most of them sell at price points far lower than the Model S. The Model 3 gives Tesla 3 models on the market and it seems pretty likely that the Model 3 will be a brisk seller as they have gobs of pre-orders (about 3/5 of the total annual volume of Volvo). Volvo has been around for decades and yet still is a minor player somehow. They've got some fine vehicles but they aren't doing anything that all the other major auto makers aren't working on too in some form or fashion. They've carved out a nice little niche in well made, safe, grocery-getters and they seem to have a hard time thinking much beyond that. Their efforts in automated driving seem aimed primarily at adding bolt on safety features, rather than actually replacing the driver. They are padding their niche rather than trying to develop something new and more advanced.
I was looking at some erroneous data earlier - there are a few Volvo models that worldwide outsell the Model S. The numbers I was looking at were year-to-date numbers rather than full year.
Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.
Yes Tesla engages in some puffery. On the other hand they are really doing the most innovative things in the auto industry so it's not entirely without substance. (of course the auto industry is pretty stodgy so being innovative is kind of a low bar) The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.
But this $40 has to be added to the total cost of ownership of one's first phone not to include a 3.5 mm jack.
Wrong question. It's a sunk cost or will become one. The 3.5mm jack is almost certainly going away. You can either buy the bluetooth adapter now or you can buy it later but eventually you are going to have to buy it or an equivalent usb adapter of you prefer a wired connection. As such it is a sunken cost.
Can they make the phone $40 cheaper to compensate?
Probably not but Apple and Samsung and the rest aren't going to keep the aux jack solely so you don't have to spend $40 the next time you upgrade your phone.
There's no shortage of people who make use of audio jacks. Just because you don't use something doesn't mean other people don't.
Never argued otherwise. However you have the argument backwards. I like minimalist devices where you add features you need/want rather than complicated devices that come with features you'll never use. Many people listen to music via the 3.5mm jack but not all users do. As such adding that feature adds cost and complexity while simultaneously being redundant and reducing the reliability of the device. It's like when everyone was still buying PCs with floppy drives because everyone else had them long after they had been rendered redundant by newer technologies.
You're also neglecting the use of audio jacks for other purposes, like for the vision impaired.
I'm not neglecting it at all. Riddle me this. Exactly what use is a 3.5mm jack to a vision impaired person on a smartphone with no tactile interface. The front is a smooth piece of glass. Headphone jack or not, such a smartphone is mostly useless to them if they are substantially blind and if they aren't then the lack of the jack is of little consequence.
Want some fancy device interaction? Do it over bluetooth.
Or do it over the USB port that is ALREADY on the device and isn't going away. There is nothing the 3.5mm jack does that cannot be replicated in some fashion via USB and/or Bluetooth. A single purpose port on a modern mobile device is an idiotic idea.
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio.
You can buy a bluetooth adapter that plugs into the aux jack of your car for as little as $40. I have done just that and it works great. Even Dewalt makes them. No need to buy a whole new car just for bluetooth since it is trivial to add it to almost literally any existing car with a stereo.
Your problem with the jack is more easily solved by a rubber plug without inconveniencing the rest of the world.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm the only one who has a problem with the 3.5mm jack. I merely used myself as an example since my particular use cases happen to be directly contradictory to the existence of that particular interface. If that particular connector works well for your needs that's great but it doesn't apply to everyone. If you still want to use one there are ways to accomplish that with adapters. You are asking everyone to buy a more expensive and complicated device just to get a headphone jack that not everyone actually needs or wants.
The 3.5mm jack is redundant. You can accomplish substantially the same results with standard connectors and interfaces already on the devices in most cases. As such keeping that interface adds cost, reduces reliability (of the device), is more complicated to design and manufacture, forces design tradeoffs, and adds a second type unnecessary type of connector. On a portable device like a phone a single purpose connector really make very little sense, even one as common as the 3.5mm jack.
I'm not arguing that the 3.5mm jack doesn't have it's merits. It's simple, generally reliable, cheap, and ubiquitous. Worse, lots of people already have headphones that utilize that interface so any change away from it will add some changeover costs. I understand all that. But time marches on and the days of the 3.5mm jack are probably numbered. People throw a fit any time we do away with an old familiar technology but in the long run it usually works out for the best.
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
Nothing wrong with that. There is a real beauty in simple. However what might be optimal for you is not necessarily optimal for the majority. There is a saying in manufacturing that local maximums make for global minimums. Basically you can optimize one person's or group's requirements so much that it actually makes the overall system worse. For example for myself I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car). The audio jack really just is a place where dust gets into my phone and provides me no utility at all. So if we cater to your desires we are by extension making the product worse for me. Eventually something has to give.
I manufacture wire harnesses for a living. Believe me when I say that I appreciate the beauty of a simple interface better than most. But at some point keeping things simple starts holding back progress. I think we've just about reached that point with the 3.5mm jack.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
You wouldn't have to replace them. At worst you'd have to get a small adapter for them. I understand you not wanting to but I think the writing is on the wall on this one. The 3.5mm jack forces too many design compromises for it to remain in place forever.
A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism.
Are these the same iPhone using, Starbucks drinking, Nike wearing, Facebook posting, Amazon buying, Google searching young people? Give them time, they'll figure it out. Capitalism isn't what they think it is and the lifestyle they enjoy depends on it.
I think that 51% of people surveyed have no idea what capitalism is and have merely heard it used in the context of a political bogey-man. Even China, despite their official political stance is staunchly capitalist these days. Socialist countries like in Europe? They're capitalists too, just a different variety with a bit more government involvement. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is any system based on private ownership of means of production with their operation for profit. That can come in a variety of flavors but its the engine that drives the worlds economy. Even in places that don't like to admit it.
In Michigan, we can't seem to fix Flint's water, our crumbling roads and infrastructure, or a come up with a sane tax system. The only thing the legislature seems capable of is passing laws every year that cause chaos in public schools.
That's substantially (though not entirely) because we have a republicans in control of the state house, state senate and governorship. As a result they break out in hives any time anyone mentions the word "tax". The only way we will fix Michigan's shitty roads is by raising taxes in some fashion and they are completely unwilling to do it. If you haven't been to Michigan lately, you literally can tell when you've crossed the border from Ohio or Indiana with your eyes close in many places. It's that bad. Furthermore since teacher's unions are a traditional source of power for democratic party they do everything they can to weaken teachers, even if that comes at the expense of students. They seemingly have no concept of the idea of education being a public good.
The Flint water problem is honestly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems in Flint. Flint's problem go FAR deeper than the lead in their water pipes. But the water in Flint is a classic case of stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel. It's a lovely potpourri of arrogance, incompetence, bad policy, corruption and politics.
Sad thing is that Michigan is actually a really nice place to live even in spite of these problems. Yes even in Metro Detroit. (most people don't actually live in the city itself) Shame it's been so badly managed because it could be so much more than it is.
Some of the biggest names in tech and corporate America, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, have teamed up with governors and educators to ask Congress to provide $250 million in federal funding to school districts in order to give every single K-12 student in the nation an opportunity to learn how to code.
And they have the nerve to ask the taxpayers to pony up more for something they freely admit will benefit them? Here's an idea, they can fucking fund it themselves if they think it is so damn important. $250 million? Apple makes $70,000 in profit every 60 seconds. That means Apple could cover the entire amount with the profit they make in 2.5 days.
I didn't say that the contributions of personal automobiles were negligible (they are about 15%), I said that CAFE limits have a negligible impact on overall CO2 emissions
That might be what you meant but it isn't what you said. You said "limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions" which is very hard to interpret into your clarification. But fair enough, I understand your intent now.
that is, you are not going to affect climate change in any meaningful way through CAFE standards.
Again, citation please. I very much doubt that CAFE standards will have no meaningful effect. I would agree that it's certainly no cure all or even necessarily the optimal approach but to claim they will have no effect whatsoever requires more than just a hand waive assertion. I would agree that MUCH more needs to be done beyond those regulations however.
I disagree that that would be the "best thing" or that it would "help the environment"
Disagree all you want but I'm pretty comfortable with my statement. Fossil fuels are very cheap in large part because they are allowed to take advantage of economic externalities. Specifically, the full cost of the pollution they create is not included in either the cost to produce or the cost to use fossil fuel products. In effect we are indirectly subsidizing their use. Making fossil fuels more expensive through taxation would have the effect of reducing demand. Economics 101 - price goes up and demand will fall. Furthermore it is trivial to demonstrate that reduced use of fossil fuels would benefit the environment. If you have a more economically efficient way to drive down fossil fuel usage and encourage alternative energy sources I'm all ears but I'm not aware of one.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it was popular before Clarkson et al (for 25 years, no less) and stands a decent chance of being popular again, and this time with a wider audience.
Given how successful the show was I think your notion of it appealing to an even wider audience is wishful thinking. The audience was already incredibly wide. Even people like my sister who could not care less about cars found the show entertaining.
The show has been on air in various incarnations since 1977 but it wasn't a breakout hit until 2002 when they found the combination of Clarkson, May and Hammond. I'm sure it will soldier on but it's going to be difficult to catch lightning in a bottle twice.
It was May and Hammond who carried it, and maybe the other new presenters will carry Evans.
Jeremy was undeniably the star of the show but not in the usual sense. What really made the show work was the chemistry between all three of them. Jeremy was kind of a first among equals but take away May and Hammond and it just didn't work as well. That's a hard thing to replicate. Take the US version of Top Gear. All three of the hosts aren't Ferrera, Foust and Wood are all fine individually but they simply don't have the same chemistry as Clarkson, May and Hammond and the show simply isn't as good as a result.
The other thing that made Top Gear work and I think Clarkson was the driving force behind is because they didn't pull a lot of punches. Whether you agreed with their take on something or not, they definitely HAD a take and didn't seem to hold back much. Clarkson seems to be the driving force behind that. If they thought some million dollar supercar was crap, they said so. They didn't pretend to be fair, or objective or even competent but they did seem to say what they thought. Frankly their negative reviews were usually more interesting than their positive ones. Other shows like the US Top Gear version seem to be more hesitant to give a bad review, presumably for fear of pissing off advertisers or incurring lawsuits. But without those strong takes the show just isn't as good.
Considering Clarkson's record on international diplomacy and pissing off the natives, is a world tour really a good idea?
He only pisses off the natives that were already pissed off before he got there. Particularly those who lack any sort of sense of humor, perspective or ability to laugh at themselves.
Even companies who caught the mobile revolution early at various points couldn't prosper. I remember when Nokia looked unstoppable, and later RIM / Blackberry.
That's because those companies got complacent and made some huge strategic errors without having the cash reserves to work through them. Microsoft has had it's share of mistakes and complacency but it has a FAR stronger balance sheet than RIM or Nokia ever did. Windows and Office were/are/remain phenomenal cash cows and they insulate Microsoft from many of their errors. At this point Microsoft has so much cash that they could simply hopscotch into a completely different industry if they needed to. They have enough cash to buy Fortune 100 companies outright without issuing a single share of stock. RIM and Nokia never got even close to a balance sheet that strong.
Remember when people said that MS missed the mobile revolution and was going to die. Good times.
Only people who said that were people who couldn't read a balance sheet. There are scenarios where they might struggle but realistically any company with enough cash to buy both Ford and GM outright isn't going away. They might change to something unrecognizable from their current form but they wont disappear. Windows might be doomed. Office might be doomed. But Microsoft isn't going away anytime soon unless they pull an Enron.
Then theres the issue of beyond visual range engagements, which is where most of the action happens these days and where missiles excel.
Except when you need to actually have positive target identification. Shooting a missile over the horizon can work but it's a lot harder to be certain you aren't blowing up the wrong target. Missiles have gotten better but target ID is still and problem and they still put guns on fighters for a reason. The F22 has a 20mm cannon and they aren't getting rid of it in the near future.
Plus direct line of sight for a laser system can be beyond visual range for a human eye.
If your fighter carries a laser and no missiles you better hope your laser can shoot down their missiles, which they will be firing at you from over the horizon where your laser cannot reach.
I don't think it is an either/or thing.
3D printing is very effective for complicated shapes that you can't make with other techniques, or only at very high cost.
No argument except that there are rather few products that fit that description. The percent of products where 3D printing is the most economical method is extremely small in comparison with the size of the the overall manufacturing market.
And while volume for individual products is low, it adds up to a decent combined total, especially when you consider the much higher margins on low-volume items.
Partly correct but I'm not sure you've thought it through entirely. As a general proposition it's pretty cheap for companies to make and store small quantities of products. If someone happens to have a 3D printer capable of printing the material for that specific product then it might make sense but very few will have a 3D printer that can print plastic and another for aluminum and another for steel and etc etc... If the product involves multiple materials, currently 3D printing is immediately off the table in most cases. I expect that will change someday but that day is a long time away still.
3D printing is useful in some specific circumstances but it's been around a long time and it's going to take several more decades to really become mainstream. I was working with 3D printers in my day job 20 years ago. We had some big Stratasys units for doing plastic prototypes. The state of the art has advanced but not as far as many think. It's still very expensive to do production quality products out of a 3D printer and it's useless for volume production.
As for margins, I think I can speak to that. I'm a certified accountant. One mistake people make is in thinking that costs have any relationship to selling price. A customer's willingness to pay doesn't necessarily go up because it costs you more to make it. Just because I can build something for $X doesn't mean I can necessarily sell it for more than $X. Just because something is low volume doesn't necessarily mean the margins are fat on it. I run a manufacturing company that specializes in low volume production and we often run into jobs where there is no margin at all or even negative margin on very small unit volume.
For comparison, this year the industry will reach nearly $7.3 billion, and by 2020, it is expected to reach nearly $21 billion.
That sounds like a lot (and it is) but compared to the overall manufacturing market it's virtually a rounding error. The US manufacturing sector alone is something close to $2 Trillion and the US accounts for something like 17% of global manufacturing. (China is somewhere around $3 Trillion currently and Japan is around $800 Billion) For reference $7.3 billion is just a bit smaller than the total revenue of eBay. Impressive but hardly world shaking.
Here's an impressive stat: 3D printing represents only 0.04% of the global manufacturing market right now. However, if 3D printing captures 5% of global manufacturing capacity, which researcher firm Wohlers Associates believes it will, the industry would be worth a staggering $640 billion.
That's a common argument made to justify silly valuations of new companies and technologies. "If we capture just 1% of this huge market..." while conveniently ignoring how difficult actually doing that will be. Capturing just a few percent doesn't sound like a lot but actually it really is a monumental task. 3D printing has tremendous potential and I expect it to really be a huge deal in the coming years but it's going to be a while before it captures even 1% of global manufacturing, much less 5%.
A lot of manufacturing is not aided at all by 3D printing. For example my company makes wire harnesses. 3D printing is useful in our industry for some fixtures, prototypes and the odd bit of tooling but it's a wildly inefficient way to make a wire harness or any sizeable quantity of the parts that go into one. There are other technologies that are far more cost effective for volume production. That's not to say 3D printing isn't super helpful but it's not even close to replacing even a fraction of a percent of what we do. Same is true for plenty of other manufacturing technologies. 3D printing is great for low volume production and while I expect it to speed up, there are other ways to make things that often are much more economical and/or effective which 3D printing will struggle to displace.
The "subsidies" that the looney left yell about all the time are standard tax breaks available to manufacturers in the US.
Speaking as both an accountant and someone who runs a manufacturing company, that is not even close to correct. There are a lot of tax breaks the fossil fuel industry gets that are quite specific to their particular industry and not applicable to other commodity manufacturers.
Fossil fuel subsidies were over $500 Billion globally in 2011 and that doesn't account for the cost of mitigating the full cost of the pollution they cause.
As someone said years before on Slashdot, "carbon credits" or any sort of carbon tax is nothing more than a scam by the ultra rich to make you and me live like bugs.
A carbon tax is not some big plot by rich people. It's a way to put an economic value on the cost of dealing with the pollution created by fossil fuels. It's no different in principle from forcing a manufacturer to pay for the cost of cleaning up a byproduct of their production process. Right now the fossil fuel industry is basically allowed to dump certain of their pollutants into the air without further financial consequence. The goal of incentivizing companies and individuals to pollute less is a good one in principle but difficult to pull off in practice.
Carbon credits are a silly political compromise and so far are largely ineffective (for several reasons but mostly because they issue too many of them) but it isn't a scam either. Carbon credits aren't as effective as a straight tax but unlike a tax they are politically palatable even though the net effect is substantially the same. Call something a tax and people freak out but give them something that has the same effect but isn't a direct tax and they calm down because nobody is saying the magical bad word "tax'.
Why not just end the fossil fuel subsidies?
That would be a nice start but it still doesn't cover the cost of the pollution that fossil fuels generate. Right now we not only don't make the oil and gas companies pay for the full cost of their pollution but we actually pay them (subsidies) to generate it! That's bonkers.
1) eliminate the health care companies. We need direct pay!
The costs are too large to not have either insurance companies or the government involved. The majority of Americans would be bankrupted by a single major surgery and that would be true even if healthcare costs weren't completely out of hand.
2) eliminate the AMA. There are not enough doctors. Patients are dying in the emergency room waiting to be seen.
First off, the AMA has nothing to do with the quantity of doctors. They do not directly control the supply of doctors and in fact the number of medical schools has been increasing in the last decade. Second, there is no epidemic of patients "dying in the ER waiting to be seen". Emergency Departments (they aren't typically called Emergency Rooms because - well, they're not a room) are actually quite good at triaging patients and taking care of those in greatest need first. There is however the problem of people coming to the Emergency Department for conditions that clearly are NOT emergencies because our screwed up system gives them no other options.
3) kill all malpractice lawyers. A doctor practising in good faith should never ever be sued
And exactly how do you plan to distinguish between doctors acting in good faith and those that aren't? While the vast majority of doctors are good, hard working people who care greatly about their patients, there are exceptions. Furthermore there sometimes are doctors of questionable competence. An incompetent person acting in good faith is just as dangerous as a competent person acting in bad faith. Either one is dangerous and there has to be a mechanism for dealing with them.
4) curtail the power of the FDA. The FDA does more harm than good.
Spare me. While nobody would argue that the FDA is without problems, the FDA is one of the most successful and vital government organizations we have. Their prime directive is to actually make sure that medical treatments actually work before they can be sold to the public. Without the FDA you would have absurd levels of quackery and fake "treatments" being sold to people who don't know any better. One merely has to look at the market for "alternative medicine" (particularly homeopathy) to see what would happen. You know what they call alternative medicine that is proven to work? Medicine.
There is no difference between big government and big corporations. You do not want you health care being run by the insurance companies or the government.
If you think there is no difference between government and business you don't understand either one adequately. There are no other payment options available without involving either insurance or government. Most countries have (sensibly) picked the government option since EVERYONE needs health care at some point but insurance can be made to work. But unless you are privately wealthy there aren't any third options. Your notion of everyone paying directly is pure fantasy because the costs are and will remain too high to be feasible.
Two things. Full color. Video capable update speeds. No? Pass.
Does every book you read have full color and "video capable update speed"? How about signs? Posters? Indicator displays? Meters? Calculators? No they don't. Some applications need color and/or video. Many more do not. It's idiotic and wasteful to insist on technology not appropriate or optimized for a given task.
Seriously, don't be so daft as to think every display needs to be some power hungry 4K color video display. In fact there are a lot of applications where the display you describe would actually reduce its capability. An ebook reader doesn't need color video to display text.
Actually, it's the other way around. If any significant percentage of customers are plugging in and unplugging 3.5mm plugs several times per day, then replacing those with much-more-fragile USB-C connectors dramatically reduces the reliability of the device for that percentage of your customers.
Let's assume what you are saying is true for a moment. You don't have data but your supposition is a logical one. However it's also incomplete. You're forgetting a few important facts because you are only considering the failure modes from repeated connections of the connector. That's important but there are other failure modes to consider. Failures from dust/water entry into the device. Failures of the extra electronics. Failures of the software to manage the extra hardware. Etc (this isn't an exhaustive list) The list of failures does not stop at and may not be dominated by # connections. Further if the MTBF for USB-C substantially exceeds the typical time of ownership then it is a moot issue for most people.
You also have to consider what the cost of each of these failure modes. I'm pretty sure Apple and other smartphone makers have copious data about the various failure modes and their relative costs. A failure mode might be infrequent but expensive to mitigate. Failures have to be weighed against the costs they create. Its not merely a question of frequency but also severity and difficulty/cost to mitigate.
No, it isn't even slightly like that. People bought PCs with floppy drives, and something like one percent of them used them more often than once a year.
The floppy drive was obsolete LONG before that become the case. There were technologically better options commonly available by the early 1990s and yet floppy drives limped on for another decade and were still in shockingly common use until the late 1990s. Software was still routinely installed by floppy disk even as late as 2000. It wasn't until the late 90s before software became most commonly distributed on CD.
And even if the adapter were only $5 (instead of a more typical $20 early adopter penalty), every affected customer would still pay a lot more for even a single adapter than they would for the 15-cent headphone jack.
By separating the headphone jack you are letting those who want one a means to pay for it without imposing the cost of it on others who have no need for it. If it is worth $5 (or $15) to you then you should be willing to pay that. The makers of these devices aren't running a charity. If customers really do turn out to want one then either it will find its way back on the the device (unlikely) or people will migrate over time to other options. In the mean time we find out what the real economic value of that particular feature is.
In those 52 years, that connector has not changed significantly, despite many, many companies trying to do so. It isn't going to magically go away just because a couple of badly misguided consumer electronics companies think it it is out of date....
Nobody is claiming the jack will disappear entirely. It won't. But there is no reason it necessarily needs to stay on your smartphone if its cost exceeds its utility. We seem to be getting close to that point if we haven't passed it already. I'm sure some smartphones will still come with a headphone jack for those who still want one. Others won't and I'm reasonably confident that the ones that don't have one won't miss it very much. Personally I'd rather the space currently devoted to a headphone jack be used for more battery instead but that's just me. The headphone jack is (near as makes no difference) a unitasker on a device that by its very design is supposed to be multi-function. A single purpose connector really doesn't make any sense on a compact mobile computer.
Volvo has the tradition of over-engineering. Perhaps they just noticed how hard the problem is to solve perfectly, or at least near to their standards.
Yes they do. Which is a big part of why they are still a minor player in the auto industry. They make over-engineered, somewhat dowdy looking cars that appeal to a relatively narrow niche. Volvo, very much like Saab, has a really hard time going outside their engineering focused comfort zone. The notion of doing something radically beyond what is currently possible I think is an interference fit with their corporate culture.
Volvo's customers have fourteen models to chose from.
So what? The Model S out sells most of those models and most of them sell at price points far lower than the Model S. The Model 3 gives Tesla 3 models on the market and it seems pretty likely that the Model 3 will be a brisk seller as they have gobs of pre-orders (about 3/5 of the total annual volume of Volvo). Volvo has been around for decades and yet still is a minor player somehow. They've got some fine vehicles but they aren't doing anything that all the other major auto makers aren't working on too in some form or fashion. They've carved out a nice little niche in well made, safe, grocery-getters and they seem to have a hard time thinking much beyond that. Their efforts in automated driving seem aimed primarily at adding bolt on safety features, rather than actually replacing the driver. They are padding their niche rather than trying to develop something new and more advanced.
I was looking at some erroneous data earlier - there are a few Volvo models that worldwide outsell the Model S. The numbers I was looking at were year-to-date numbers rather than full year.
Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.
Yes Tesla engages in some puffery. On the other hand they are really doing the most innovative things in the auto industry so it's not entirely without substance. (of course the auto industry is pretty stodgy so being innovative is kind of a low bar) The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.
But this $40 has to be added to the total cost of ownership of one's first phone not to include a 3.5 mm jack.
Wrong question. It's a sunk cost or will become one. The 3.5mm jack is almost certainly going away. You can either buy the bluetooth adapter now or you can buy it later but eventually you are going to have to buy it or an equivalent usb adapter of you prefer a wired connection. As such it is a sunken cost.
Can they make the phone $40 cheaper to compensate?
Probably not but Apple and Samsung and the rest aren't going to keep the aux jack solely so you don't have to spend $40 the next time you upgrade your phone.
There's no shortage of people who make use of audio jacks. Just because you don't use something doesn't mean other people don't.
Never argued otherwise. However you have the argument backwards. I like minimalist devices where you add features you need/want rather than complicated devices that come with features you'll never use. Many people listen to music via the 3.5mm jack but not all users do. As such adding that feature adds cost and complexity while simultaneously being redundant and reducing the reliability of the device. It's like when everyone was still buying PCs with floppy drives because everyone else had them long after they had been rendered redundant by newer technologies.
You're also neglecting the use of audio jacks for other purposes, like for the vision impaired.
I'm not neglecting it at all. Riddle me this. Exactly what use is a 3.5mm jack to a vision impaired person on a smartphone with no tactile interface. The front is a smooth piece of glass. Headphone jack or not, such a smartphone is mostly useless to them if they are substantially blind and if they aren't then the lack of the jack is of little consequence.
Want some fancy device interaction? Do it over bluetooth.
Or do it over the USB port that is ALREADY on the device and isn't going away. There is nothing the 3.5mm jack does that cannot be replicated in some fashion via USB and/or Bluetooth. A single purpose port on a modern mobile device is an idiotic idea.
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio.
You can buy a bluetooth adapter that plugs into the aux jack of your car for as little as $40. I have done just that and it works great. Even Dewalt makes them. No need to buy a whole new car just for bluetooth since it is trivial to add it to almost literally any existing car with a stereo.
Your problem with the jack is more easily solved by a rubber plug without inconveniencing the rest of the world.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm the only one who has a problem with the 3.5mm jack. I merely used myself as an example since my particular use cases happen to be directly contradictory to the existence of that particular interface. If that particular connector works well for your needs that's great but it doesn't apply to everyone. If you still want to use one there are ways to accomplish that with adapters. You are asking everyone to buy a more expensive and complicated device just to get a headphone jack that not everyone actually needs or wants.
The 3.5mm jack is redundant. You can accomplish substantially the same results with standard connectors and interfaces already on the devices in most cases. As such keeping that interface adds cost, reduces reliability (of the device), is more complicated to design and manufacture, forces design tradeoffs, and adds a second type unnecessary type of connector. On a portable device like a phone a single purpose connector really make very little sense, even one as common as the 3.5mm jack.
I'm not arguing that the 3.5mm jack doesn't have it's merits. It's simple, generally reliable, cheap, and ubiquitous. Worse, lots of people already have headphones that utilize that interface so any change away from it will add some changeover costs. I understand all that. But time marches on and the days of the 3.5mm jack are probably numbered. People throw a fit any time we do away with an old familiar technology but in the long run it usually works out for the best.
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
Nothing wrong with that. There is a real beauty in simple. However what might be optimal for you is not necessarily optimal for the majority. There is a saying in manufacturing that local maximums make for global minimums. Basically you can optimize one person's or group's requirements so much that it actually makes the overall system worse. For example for myself I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car). The audio jack really just is a place where dust gets into my phone and provides me no utility at all. So if we cater to your desires we are by extension making the product worse for me. Eventually something has to give.
I manufacture wire harnesses for a living. Believe me when I say that I appreciate the beauty of a simple interface better than most. But at some point keeping things simple starts holding back progress. I think we've just about reached that point with the 3.5mm jack.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
You wouldn't have to replace them. At worst you'd have to get a small adapter for them. I understand you not wanting to but I think the writing is on the wall on this one. The 3.5mm jack forces too many design compromises for it to remain in place forever.
A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism.
Are these the same iPhone using, Starbucks drinking, Nike wearing, Facebook posting, Amazon buying, Google searching young people? Give them time, they'll figure it out. Capitalism isn't what they think it is and the lifestyle they enjoy depends on it.
I think that 51% of people surveyed have no idea what capitalism is and have merely heard it used in the context of a political bogey-man. Even China, despite their official political stance is staunchly capitalist these days. Socialist countries like in Europe? They're capitalists too, just a different variety with a bit more government involvement. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is any system based on private ownership of means of production with their operation for profit. That can come in a variety of flavors but its the engine that drives the worlds economy. Even in places that don't like to admit it.
In Michigan, we can't seem to fix Flint's water, our crumbling roads and infrastructure, or a come up with a sane tax system. The only thing the legislature seems capable of is passing laws every year that cause chaos in public schools.
That's substantially (though not entirely) because we have a republicans in control of the state house, state senate and governorship. As a result they break out in hives any time anyone mentions the word "tax". The only way we will fix Michigan's shitty roads is by raising taxes in some fashion and they are completely unwilling to do it. If you haven't been to Michigan lately, you literally can tell when you've crossed the border from Ohio or Indiana with your eyes close in many places. It's that bad. Furthermore since teacher's unions are a traditional source of power for democratic party they do everything they can to weaken teachers, even if that comes at the expense of students. They seemingly have no concept of the idea of education being a public good.
The Flint water problem is honestly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems in Flint. Flint's problem go FAR deeper than the lead in their water pipes. But the water in Flint is a classic case of stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel. It's a lovely potpourri of arrogance, incompetence, bad policy, corruption and politics.
Sad thing is that Michigan is actually a really nice place to live even in spite of these problems. Yes even in Metro Detroit. (most people don't actually live in the city itself) Shame it's been so badly managed because it could be so much more than it is.
Some of the biggest names in tech and corporate America, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, have teamed up with governors and educators to ask Congress to provide $250 million in federal funding to school districts in order to give every single K-12 student in the nation an opportunity to learn how to code.
Cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet for US operations:
Apple $38 Billion
Facebook $18 Billion
Microsoft $105 Billion
Walmart $8 Billion
And they have the nerve to ask the taxpayers to pony up more for something they freely admit will benefit them? Here's an idea, they can fucking fund it themselves if they think it is so damn important. $250 million? Apple makes $70,000 in profit every 60 seconds. That means Apple could cover the entire amount with the profit they make in 2.5 days.
I didn't say that the contributions of personal automobiles were negligible (they are about 15%), I said that CAFE limits have a negligible impact on overall CO2 emissions
That might be what you meant but it isn't what you said. You said "limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions" which is very hard to interpret into your clarification. But fair enough, I understand your intent now.
that is, you are not going to affect climate change in any meaningful way through CAFE standards.
Again, citation please. I very much doubt that CAFE standards will have no meaningful effect. I would agree that it's certainly no cure all or even necessarily the optimal approach but to claim they will have no effect whatsoever requires more than just a hand waive assertion. I would agree that MUCH more needs to be done beyond those regulations however.
I disagree that that would be the "best thing" or that it would "help the environment"
Disagree all you want but I'm pretty comfortable with my statement. Fossil fuels are very cheap in large part because they are allowed to take advantage of economic externalities. Specifically, the full cost of the pollution they create is not included in either the cost to produce or the cost to use fossil fuel products. In effect we are indirectly subsidizing their use. Making fossil fuels more expensive through taxation would have the effect of reducing demand. Economics 101 - price goes up and demand will fall. Furthermore it is trivial to demonstrate that reduced use of fossil fuels would benefit the environment. If you have a more economically efficient way to drive down fossil fuel usage and encourage alternative energy sources I'm all ears but I'm not aware of one.