Voters love the environment until it costs them money.
Correction. Voters love the environment until they think it costs them money. It already costs them money even when they don't think it does. They just get all selfish when it is clearly coming out of their pockets instead of out of everyone's.
It's cheap for the person dumping pollutants into the stream and in the short term it's cheap for the dumper's customers too. But there is a cost to be paid and it WILL be paid in some fashion. Focus on short term profits and you will pay more in the long term. It's hard to get concerned about and invisible, ordorless, non-toxic pollutant like carbon. Any effects from it will take decades to manifest themselves and the evidence of carbon causing problems is subtle and hard to explain.
Advertising (i.e. money) has limited power, the true power, the true currency of politics is votes.
Advertising gets votes, ergo it is a distinction without a difference. Advertising doesn't get all or even most votes but it doesn't have to. It merely has to get enough to tip the election which advertising demonstrably can do. You will not find one person who has been involved with an actual campaign who will tell you money doesn't matter. It's not the end-all-be-all but it matters quite a lot.
A motivated and well informed voter is not swayed by advertising. Only the indifferent or disinterested are swayed by advertising.
First off I guarantee you that a well informed voter can sometimes be swayed by advertising. Happens all the time. Second, there are LOTS of disinterested voters out there. I am regularly asked to vote for local officials who I know absolutely nothing about and even when I care I simply have limited time and motivation to learn about them. People demonstrably tend to vote for people they've heard of over those they haven't regardless of their actual positions on issues. That's how incumbents tend to get re-elected. Guess what a really good way to hear about someone is? Advertising!
In the U.S. recently an upstart college professor spent $100,000 in an election and defeated a power incumbent who spent $5,000,000. The professor had motivated voters, the incumbent had money.
That's pretty much the exception that proves the rule. You neglected to point out that the incumbent was a high ranking member of congress who had spent relatively little time campaigning in his district. He screwed up. No amount of money will help you if you don't actually pay attention to what matters.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things
You are talking about tax incidence but you don't have the logic correct. We ALREADY are paying for whatever cost carbon pollution has but it is spread out equally among all people regardless of their use of technologies that rely on carbon emissions. There is no direct incentive for anyone to worry about emitting less carbon. A tax would create a direct economic burden on those who use more carbon which which in turn will motivate those who use more to try to find ways to use less. If you get more benefit from carbon emission (like a power company or a heavy consumer of electricity) then you should have to pay more of the burden. As it stands each of us has to pay for the effects of carbon pollution in an amount unrelated to the amount we generate.
because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
They already are passing along the cost, just not directly. Instead of paying for it directly, we pay for it through environmental effects. Climate and the resulting weather changes affect crop yields, business patterns, healthcare, etc all of which have very real and measurable costs. But the cause of those costs has zero incentive to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution because they do not have a direct economic cost of their actions. It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons, writ large.
Taxes are exactly the wrong way to do this. It seems like a good idea. Until you realize what exactly do they do with taxes
Doesn't matter much what they do with the taxes because that is not the point of the tax. The point of the tax is to eliminate an externality because of a market failure. Users of fossil fuels and certain other carbon emitting technologies are presently able to dump any amount of carbon into the environment without cost or consequence to them regardless of the actual cost to society. If the science is to be believed, carbon emissions are having a significant and measurable impact on our climate. Therefore it makes sense to have the government tax these emissions to ensure that the emitters are paying something close to the full economic cost of their pollution. If carbon has a cost then there is an economic (market) incentive for emitters of carbon to try to find ways to reduce the amount of carbon they release. Right now there is no cost to emitting carbon so there is no incentive to reduce carbon emissions.
That's the point. The shouldn't take the human out of it. They should take that into account when making these decisions.
Sometimes you have to take the emotion out of it. I'm not saying remove all humanity from the situation but throwing a fit because you get referred to (accurately) as an asset is rather immature. I AM an asset and I wear the term proudly because it means I'm valuable to others. That doesn't mean I'm valuable in every situation. You put me on an NBA basketball court and I quickly become a liability and I'd be a fool to not realize that. I'm valuable for some things and not so much of others. Sometimes people who are assets in one circumstance become liabilities in another or when circumstances change. Treat it like the term geek and own it and you'll make it a positive thing.
I particularly like it how big companies use the same terms to get rid of a junk computer as they do to get rid of people. It is time to surplus or excess uneeded assets...
Just playing devils advocate here but what terms would you suggest? Take the emotion out of it for a moment. I agree that it is rather cold but its hard to argue that employees are not a type of asset to the company. The most valuable kind of asset in many ways. Not one the company owns of course but you do not have to own an asset for it to be beneficial to the company. If someone is hired by the company to do specific work and the work they perform is no longer needed, exactly how is that functionally different than any other type of asset that is no longer needed by the company? On a coldly rational basis there is no difference.
That's not to excuse the horrible way many companies treat employees whose employment then need (or want) to terminate but just because the term is cold doesn't mean it is wrong. Disrespectful maybe but only in the sense that it is kind of coldly clinical.
Putting the emotion back into things, I can assure you from personal experience that having to fire someone is nearly as uncomfortable for the person doing the firing as it is for the person being fired. It is absolutely the thing I like least to do in my job and virtually all people who have ever had to let someone go will tell you the same thing. I've sat on both sides of the table and it's almost equally uncomfortable either way. Absolutely ruins your day as well as the time before and after usually. In some ways referring to it in coldly clinical terms is a bit of a coping mechanism.
Elegance without performance is ultimately pointless. And the 68k platform seemed to be neglected by Motorola. I don't know if the problem was economic, technical or some other issue but Motorola was clearly falling behind the competition for whatever reason. The x86 architecture is ugly (to put it kindly) but it's generally good enough, fast enough, cheap enough and it benefits heavily from network effects. Plus Intel is without question the industry leader in manufacturing efficiency (including die size) so they have a real cost advantage that is hard to overcome for the types of chips they make.
Not needing a passenger happens to be one of the more awesome features of driverless cars... People can effectively have valet drop off for wherever they go. Cars can be shared because you're staying put at a given location for a period of a time. Cars can drive themselves to maintenance. Cars can make delivery runs.
Quit talking about this stuff in the present tense. It sounds absurd. Driverless cars are not a thing yet. Hopefully one day but today is not that day. Not tomorrow either.
Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?
The federal government hasn't caused any big problems for Tesla. It's State governments that are the problem. Legislators for State governments are protecting auto dealers (also known as unnecessary middlemen) to the detriment of both auto manufacturers and car buyers.
I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.
This is circular logic with a touch of hypocrisy. So people that value diversity and inclusion are supposed to welcome those that oppose diversity and inclusion even when doing so will result in less diversity and inclusion? The republican party is for the most part dominated by older white men - of which Rand Paul is one. There is a reason well over 90% of blacks, 70% of hispanic and a majority of women lean to the democrats. In case you were wondering why it has a little something to do with the republican party having earned a reputation for not valuing diversity and inclusion. There is a difference between accepting the idea that others might disagree with you and acting to support those you disagree with to the detriment of your own principles and interests.
God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.
So it's ok for conservatives to not be open to liberal ideas but it's not ok for liberals to be cool with conservative ideas? Nice double standard you have there.
The commerce clause doesn't seem to apply within a state, only between states.
Cars are not usually made in the same state they are sold in. Dealers are basically (unnecessary) middlemen in a transaction between an automotive manufacturer and a car buyer. Its pretty easy to make the argument that this transaction is effectively an interstate transaction. The transaction between the dealer and the auto manufacturer is also usually an interstate transaction. The only thing that is "local" is transaction between the car dealer and the car buyer and that is a largely artificial construct.
Largely yes from what I can tell. I think the big autos are staying largely out of the argument to avoid pissing off their dealer networks. The auto companies are in a tough spot - they need the dealers because they are required to need the dealers and thus have no alternative. I think the auto makers would prefer to do away with many of the dealers but cannot. The justice department published an interesting study on the relevant economic effects.
Many industries sell only through distributors, dealers, or otherwise "authorized" retail outlets.
Usually when the cost to reach/serve the customer is too large to justify the expense of interacting with customers directly. In years past having the dealer network allowed the auto makers to concentrate on making the vehicles without the distraction and expense of trying to sell the end product too. Now however much of the profits is in service and financing so requiring a dealer network makes considerably less sense than it did 40 years ago.
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference.,/quote>
How do you think the threshold gets set? Congress and states pass laws and it gets hashed out on a case by case basis through regulations and lawsuits on a case by case basis. There is no other way to settle what that the threshold should be. If the States are interfering with interstate commerce as I've theorized then they should have their hand slapped. The entire purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to keep crap like this from happening to the detriment of all.
States are already too encumbered.
If the State is encumbered in this case then it is the fault of the State for protecting a group of middlemen at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. The option with the least encumbrance is for the State to have no law protecting dealerships. If they insist such a law is necessary (as is their right) then they have the obligation to defend their position if necessary when it appears to violate the Constitution.
Because what the occupants of the White House think matters. Same with Congress. We don't have to like it but we're idiots if we pretend their opinion doesn't matter. If there is a problem that they can solve and the States are unwilling (wouldn't be the first time) then I'm fine with the Feds taking care of it. I just care that the right thing happens.
Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want.
State law that may very well interfere with interstate commerce. Auto dealers do not (generally) source their vehicles locally and so you can make a pretty good argument that interstate commerce applies here. I can also very easily argue that the Auto Dealer Associations are engaging in a form of racketeering. They are pretending to "protect" us from the big bad auto companies while providing no discernible value to customers or to auto companies generally and they have influenced politicians to protect their business model to the detriment of others. Sounds an awful lot like racketeering to me.
I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies. IANAL of course but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.
There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.
Not realistic and at the end of the day probably less valuable to morale than company management that actually does what it says it is going to do. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to promise that you will do everything you can to prevent layoffs and mean it. I would be happy to introduce you to quite a few company owners who actually care a lot about the people working for them.
Anyone who feels like their job is safe without one is a blithering idiot. If your employees are so easily pacified, you must be riding herd on a gaggle of morons.
A contract won't save your job if the company goes under. In bankruptcy court contracts often become null and void. Anyone who thinks a contract will secure their job in tough economic times or against bad company strategy is a blithering idiot.
That said, these mass layoffs only become necessary when people aren't let go when they actually deserve it.
Only sometimes true. Sometimes the company just runs into unexpected or unavoidable trouble. A lot of companies had to wield the layoff ax back in 2008-9 for reasons that had nothing to do with retaining too many bad employees. My company was one of them. Our revenues dropped to 1/3 of their previous level almost literally overnight thanks to the financial meltdown and because we run a tight ship we didn't really have many crap employees to let go. We had to let some good people go through no fault of their own or that of management. It was just a bad beat as they say in poker.
Sometimes, sometimes not. The effect of layoffs on stock price is not causal. You can easily find cases where the stock price drops when layoffs are announced when investors take it as a signal of deteriorating strategic position.
Most stock holders are short term, so buy low, sell high.
Depends on what you consider short term. Average length of share holding is somewhere between 6 months and a year depending on the exchange and considerably less frequent for privately held companies. Bearing in mind that this is heavily skewed by high frequency traders you can make a pretty good argument that the majority of shareholders hold stocks for well over a year which our taxing authorities consider long term.
Only if you keep it a big secret why the people were fired.
Explaining why someone was let go is a great way to get yourself sued if you aren't super careful. Particularly if the person terminated is a member of a protected group like a minority. Terminating employees is (almost) never good for morale but if you have to let a lot of them go then you want to do it all at once, explain in general terms the business reason why but no specifics about a particular person and explain why you will not have to let anyone else go after this. I've seen first hand what happens to companies that try the slow band-aid removal method and the results are not pretty.
If they were fired for an actual business reason, that reason should not need to be kept a secret.
The reasons usually aren't a secret (office gossip might be the only thing that travels faster than light) but unless it is something like "we are getting out of this line of business" you have to be VERY careful about what you say. Any competent HR pro will tell you that terminating employees can be something of a legal minefield if you don't do it right. This includes employees that were terminated For Cause. Some of this caution is unfortunately absurd but it is equally necessary.
Pity that corporations like this always seem to want to lay everyone off at once, though. Why can't they do it gradually?
Because doing it gradually is a Really Bad Idea (TM). If you have to let people go you need to be able to tell the staff that is left that their jobs are safe and mean it. Otherwise morale goes in the toilet with people constantly wondering if they are next on the chopping block. I can show you tons of case studies where companies did layoffs a few at a time and the result was a staff that never was sure they'd have a job tomorrow and performance suffered accordingly. People start brushing up their resumes instead of doing the work they were hired for. Nobody likes layoffs but doing them gradually is far worse than doing it all at once.
I wonder how much the illegality of it figures into the convenience.
A lot. iTunes is probably the best example of this. Prior to iTunes, people turned to services like Napster. Partly because of money of course but a lot of it was simply convenience. They could actually find what they were looking for and get it for a modest investment. Then iTunes came along and people could find much of what they wanted, quickly and legally, in exchange for an amount of money they could live with. They no longer had to buy an album with 12 tracks of crap for $10 to get the 1 or 2 songs they actually wanted. Now people buy literally billions of songs all on the up and up because it is convenient and the price isn't a slap in the face.
Would they continue to want to go to the theater, which has a much larger screen and great sound, but which also costs a fair bit (and even more for any snacks you want, which are actually the theater's primary profit center) and which isn't as convenient in either time or space as having it at home?
If they value the things the theater provides then yes they will go. If they don't then they won't. Right now I think the value for money you get from most theaters is pretty poor. I get to sit in an uncomfortable chair with a sticky floor, pay $8-15 for a ticket, the only food is outrageously priced food you normally only get at a high school concession stand served by poorly trained high school students in unsanitary conditions. Gee, wonder why people might not enjoy that.
There are some theaters like Alamo Drafthouse down in Austin Texas which seem to get it and are trying to offer a better experience. I really wouldn't mind going to a movie and dropping some bucks for some actually good food, comfortable seats, amazing sound, cool extras, maybe a dvd to take home, etc.
I don't understand this rationalization. I agree that $25 is certainly wayyy too much money for most movies released to DVD. However that doesn't mean you automatically have a right to get it for free.
Not really expecting or asking for it for free. I'm asking for it for a reasonable price and for that price to be negotiated in good faith. If they can't be reasonable then neither will I. I play by the rules because I think it is the right thing to do but my willingness to do that does have limits. This is a zero sum game. Their costs are fixed so the publisher and I are just bargaining over how to split the dollar. I have no objection to them making a profit but only to a point. I'm willing to play by the rules but only as long as the other party appears to be willing to meet me part way. When they are trying to charge me $25 for a DVD then what the publisher is telling me is that they think they can take advantage of me. I don't really need or want to pirate any media (and I haven't) but if they piss me off enough I will not take the option off the table either even if it is technically against the law.
I go to the movie theater to get an experience and that experience is tangential to the actual movie itself. I go to a movie theater because either A) they have a large screen and great sound and other features (sometimes food) that I cannot reasonably replicate at home or B) I'm on a date or other social outing or C) both of the above. If I wanted to just see the movie and don't care if it is on a shitty little screen at home TV or my computer then the theater going experience has nothing to offer me. I go to see Godzilla in the theater because big monsters should be seen on a big screen with awesome sound. I go to see a RomCom in theaters because I'm on a date. Theaters need to cater to these reasons or there is no reason to go there. Places like Alamo Drafthouse seem to comprehend this.
As for media purchases, I'm more than happy to buy a copy of a DVD (or similar media) IF and only if the price is not outrageous. The price to buy a DVD should be similar or less than the cost to see the movie in theaters. I'm giving up a large screen and awesome sound but I can watch the movie repeatedly. If the movie publisher insists that their movie costs $25 to view on my shitty little screen at home, then they should damn well expect me to look for a more economical way to view that movie - possibly including piracy if I'm sufficiently motivated. I'm simply not willing to pay that much for a mediocre experience even if I can play it as much as I want. Sell the DVDs for reasonable prices and with minimal restrictions (such as no mandatory ads EVER) and most people will be willing to fork over a few bucks without much fuss. People buy music from iTunes because for them it is a reasonable economic value (in spite of its flaws. If they charged say $3/song I doubt it would be nearly as popular.
Basically if they provide a good product for a reasonable price, I'm happy to pay them for their work. If they insist on gouging me and place too many obstacles in my way then they should expect me to go around them and pay them nothing. If the movie turns out to be shitty I expect the price to reflect that fact quickly. I think most people feel similarly.
You must have a large family, or you save up a lot of dishes to justify using a dishwasher.
Nope. Just me and my wife. Usually have enough spare room in the dishwasher for a pan or two which often is all we need for a meal though I do end up washing many pans by hand, particular if they get stuck on crusty gunk. I don't mind washing them by hand but what's the point of having a dishwasher if you aren't going to use it? Plus the dishwasher can sterilize pans better than I can by hand which is necessary on occasion. Think of it like a low rent autoclave.
The flare pot looks nice and it might improve heat transfer. If the interior is also fluted, it would be very difficult to keep clean.
Interior is non-stick and would be impossible to use if fluted for most applications. Imagine trying to fry an egg in a fluted interior. It's not a bundt pan.
Personally I'd prefer it without the nonstick surface (or non-stick optional) and for it to be machine washable. With a few specialty exceptions all my pans are machine washable which is super convenient. If it is machine washable the cleaning issues self resolve by putting it in the dishwasher.
Whereas even small towns in France are packed with bookshops.
Of course they are. They are being subsidized by price floors. They don't have to compete on price or provide a better experience that people are willing to pay for. Price floors subsidize middlemen who otherwise would have no reason or ability to exist. If these bookstores are competing on price then consumers are getting screwed by paying more than they should. If the small bookstores are providing an experience beyond the book that people are willing to pay for then the price supports are unnecessary because they are not competing on price. Either way the price supports are a bad idea that only takes money out of the pockets of customers and gives it to businesses that arguably don't deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters love the environment until it costs them money.
Correction. Voters love the environment until they think it costs them money. It already costs them money even when they don't think it does. They just get all selfish when it is clearly coming out of their pockets instead of out of everyone's.
It's cheap for the person dumping pollutants into the stream and in the short term it's cheap for the dumper's customers too. But there is a cost to be paid and it WILL be paid in some fashion. Focus on short term profits and you will pay more in the long term. It's hard to get concerned about and invisible, ordorless, non-toxic pollutant like carbon. Any effects from it will take decades to manifest themselves and the evidence of carbon causing problems is subtle and hard to explain.
Advertising (i.e. money) has limited power, the true power, the true currency of politics is votes.
Advertising gets votes, ergo it is a distinction without a difference. Advertising doesn't get all or even most votes but it doesn't have to. It merely has to get enough to tip the election which advertising demonstrably can do. You will not find one person who has been involved with an actual campaign who will tell you money doesn't matter. It's not the end-all-be-all but it matters quite a lot.
A motivated and well informed voter is not swayed by advertising. Only the indifferent or disinterested are swayed by advertising.
First off I guarantee you that a well informed voter can sometimes be swayed by advertising. Happens all the time. Second, there are LOTS of disinterested voters out there. I am regularly asked to vote for local officials who I know absolutely nothing about and even when I care I simply have limited time and motivation to learn about them. People demonstrably tend to vote for people they've heard of over those they haven't regardless of their actual positions on issues. That's how incumbents tend to get re-elected. Guess what a really good way to hear about someone is? Advertising!
In the U.S. recently an upstart college professor spent $100,000 in an election and defeated a power incumbent who spent $5,000,000. The professor had motivated voters, the incumbent had money.
That's pretty much the exception that proves the rule. You neglected to point out that the incumbent was a high ranking member of congress who had spent relatively little time campaigning in his district. He screwed up. No amount of money will help you if you don't actually pay attention to what matters.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things
You are talking about tax incidence but you don't have the logic correct. We ALREADY are paying for whatever cost carbon pollution has but it is spread out equally among all people regardless of their use of technologies that rely on carbon emissions. There is no direct incentive for anyone to worry about emitting less carbon. A tax would create a direct economic burden on those who use more carbon which which in turn will motivate those who use more to try to find ways to use less. If you get more benefit from carbon emission (like a power company or a heavy consumer of electricity) then you should have to pay more of the burden. As it stands each of us has to pay for the effects of carbon pollution in an amount unrelated to the amount we generate.
because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices.
They already are passing along the cost, just not directly. Instead of paying for it directly, we pay for it through environmental effects. Climate and the resulting weather changes affect crop yields, business patterns, healthcare, etc all of which have very real and measurable costs. But the cause of those costs has zero incentive to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution because they do not have a direct economic cost of their actions. It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons, writ large.
Taxes are exactly the wrong way to do this. It seems like a good idea. Until you realize what exactly do they do with taxes
Doesn't matter much what they do with the taxes because that is not the point of the tax. The point of the tax is to eliminate an externality because of a market failure. Users of fossil fuels and certain other carbon emitting technologies are presently able to dump any amount of carbon into the environment without cost or consequence to them regardless of the actual cost to society. If the science is to be believed, carbon emissions are having a significant and measurable impact on our climate. Therefore it makes sense to have the government tax these emissions to ensure that the emitters are paying something close to the full economic cost of their pollution. If carbon has a cost then there is an economic (market) incentive for emitters of carbon to try to find ways to reduce the amount of carbon they release. Right now there is no cost to emitting carbon so there is no incentive to reduce carbon emissions.
That's the point. The shouldn't take the human out of it. They should take that into account when making these decisions.
Sometimes you have to take the emotion out of it. I'm not saying remove all humanity from the situation but throwing a fit because you get referred to (accurately) as an asset is rather immature. I AM an asset and I wear the term proudly because it means I'm valuable to others. That doesn't mean I'm valuable in every situation. You put me on an NBA basketball court and I quickly become a liability and I'd be a fool to not realize that. I'm valuable for some things and not so much of others. Sometimes people who are assets in one circumstance become liabilities in another or when circumstances change. Treat it like the term geek and own it and you'll make it a positive thing.
I particularly like it how big companies use the same terms to get rid of a junk computer as they do to get rid of people. It is time to surplus or excess uneeded assets...
Just playing devils advocate here but what terms would you suggest? Take the emotion out of it for a moment. I agree that it is rather cold but its hard to argue that employees are not a type of asset to the company. The most valuable kind of asset in many ways. Not one the company owns of course but you do not have to own an asset for it to be beneficial to the company. If someone is hired by the company to do specific work and the work they perform is no longer needed, exactly how is that functionally different than any other type of asset that is no longer needed by the company? On a coldly rational basis there is no difference.
That's not to excuse the horrible way many companies treat employees whose employment then need (or want) to terminate but just because the term is cold doesn't mean it is wrong. Disrespectful maybe but only in the sense that it is kind of coldly clinical.
Putting the emotion back into things, I can assure you from personal experience that having to fire someone is nearly as uncomfortable for the person doing the firing as it is for the person being fired. It is absolutely the thing I like least to do in my job and virtually all people who have ever had to let someone go will tell you the same thing. I've sat on both sides of the table and it's almost equally uncomfortable either way. Absolutely ruins your day as well as the time before and after usually. In some ways referring to it in coldly clinical terms is a bit of a coping mechanism.
A much more elegant architecture than x86.
Elegance without performance is ultimately pointless. And the 68k platform seemed to be neglected by Motorola. I don't know if the problem was economic, technical or some other issue but Motorola was clearly falling behind the competition for whatever reason. The x86 architecture is ugly (to put it kindly) but it's generally good enough, fast enough, cheap enough and it benefits heavily from network effects. Plus Intel is without question the industry leader in manufacturing efficiency (including die size) so they have a real cost advantage that is hard to overcome for the types of chips they make.
Not needing a passenger happens to be one of the more awesome features of driverless cars... People can effectively have valet drop off for wherever they go. Cars can be shared because you're staying put at a given location for a period of a time. Cars can drive themselves to maintenance. Cars can make delivery runs.
Quit talking about this stuff in the present tense. It sounds absurd. Driverless cars are not a thing yet. Hopefully one day but today is not that day. Not tomorrow either.
Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?
The federal government hasn't caused any big problems for Tesla. It's State governments that are the problem. Legislators for State governments are protecting auto dealers (also known as unnecessary middlemen) to the detriment of both auto manufacturers and car buyers.
I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.
This is circular logic with a touch of hypocrisy. So people that value diversity and inclusion are supposed to welcome those that oppose diversity and inclusion even when doing so will result in less diversity and inclusion? The republican party is for the most part dominated by older white men - of which Rand Paul is one. There is a reason well over 90% of blacks, 70% of hispanic and a majority of women lean to the democrats. In case you were wondering why it has a little something to do with the republican party having earned a reputation for not valuing diversity and inclusion. There is a difference between accepting the idea that others might disagree with you and acting to support those you disagree with to the detriment of your own principles and interests.
God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.
So it's ok for conservatives to not be open to liberal ideas but it's not ok for liberals to be cool with conservative ideas? Nice double standard you have there.
The commerce clause doesn't seem to apply within a state, only between states.
Cars are not usually made in the same state they are sold in. Dealers are basically (unnecessary) middlemen in a transaction between an automotive manufacturer and a car buyer. Its pretty easy to make the argument that this transaction is effectively an interstate transaction. The transaction between the dealer and the auto manufacturer is also usually an interstate transaction. The only thing that is "local" is transaction between the car dealer and the car buyer and that is a largely artificial construct.
Is the opposition coming just from the dealers?
Largely yes from what I can tell. I think the big autos are staying largely out of the argument to avoid pissing off their dealer networks. The auto companies are in a tough spot - they need the dealers because they are required to need the dealers and thus have no alternative. I think the auto makers would prefer to do away with many of the dealers but cannot. The justice department published an interesting study on the relevant economic effects.
Many industries sell only through distributors, dealers, or otherwise "authorized" retail outlets.
Usually when the cost to reach/serve the customer is too large to justify the expense of interacting with customers directly. In years past having the dealer network allowed the auto makers to concentrate on making the vehicles without the distraction and expense of trying to sell the end product too. Now however much of the profits is in service and financing so requiring a dealer network makes considerably less sense than it did 40 years ago.
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference.,/quote>
How do you think the threshold gets set? Congress and states pass laws and it gets hashed out on a case by case basis through regulations and lawsuits on a case by case basis. There is no other way to settle what that the threshold should be. If the States are interfering with interstate commerce as I've theorized then they should have their hand slapped. The entire purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to keep crap like this from happening to the detriment of all.
States are already too encumbered.
If the State is encumbered in this case then it is the fault of the State for protecting a group of middlemen at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. The option with the least encumbrance is for the State to have no law protecting dealerships. If they insist such a law is necessary (as is their right) then they have the obligation to defend their position if necessary when it appears to violate the Constitution.
Who cares what the WH thinks?
Because what the occupants of the White House think matters. Same with Congress. We don't have to like it but we're idiots if we pretend their opinion doesn't matter. If there is a problem that they can solve and the States are unwilling (wouldn't be the first time) then I'm fine with the Feds taking care of it. I just care that the right thing happens.
Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want.
State law that may very well interfere with interstate commerce. Auto dealers do not (generally) source their vehicles locally and so you can make a pretty good argument that interstate commerce applies here. I can also very easily argue that the Auto Dealer Associations are engaging in a form of racketeering. They are pretending to "protect" us from the big bad auto companies while providing no discernible value to customers or to auto companies generally and they have influenced politicians to protect their business model to the detriment of others. Sounds an awful lot like racketeering to me.
I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies. IANAL of course but it doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.
There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.
If you meant it, you'd give them contracts.
Not realistic and at the end of the day probably less valuable to morale than company management that actually does what it says it is going to do. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to promise that you will do everything you can to prevent layoffs and mean it. I would be happy to introduce you to quite a few company owners who actually care a lot about the people working for them.
Anyone who feels like their job is safe without one is a blithering idiot. If your employees are so easily pacified, you must be riding herd on a gaggle of morons.
A contract won't save your job if the company goes under. In bankruptcy court contracts often become null and void. Anyone who thinks a contract will secure their job in tough economic times or against bad company strategy is a blithering idiot.
That said, these mass layoffs only become necessary when people aren't let go when they actually deserve it.
Only sometimes true. Sometimes the company just runs into unexpected or unavoidable trouble. A lot of companies had to wield the layoff ax back in 2008-9 for reasons that had nothing to do with retaining too many bad employees. My company was one of them. Our revenues dropped to 1/3 of their previous level almost literally overnight thanks to the financial meltdown and because we run a tight ship we didn't really have many crap employees to let go. We had to let some good people go through no fault of their own or that of management. It was just a bad beat as they say in poker.
Layoffs raise the stock price.
Sometimes, sometimes not. The effect of layoffs on stock price is not causal. You can easily find cases where the stock price drops when layoffs are announced when investors take it as a signal of deteriorating strategic position.
Most stock holders are short term, so buy low, sell high.
Depends on what you consider short term. Average length of share holding is somewhere between 6 months and a year depending on the exchange and considerably less frequent for privately held companies. Bearing in mind that this is heavily skewed by high frequency traders you can make a pretty good argument that the majority of shareholders hold stocks for well over a year which our taxing authorities consider long term.
Only if you keep it a big secret why the people were fired.
Explaining why someone was let go is a great way to get yourself sued if you aren't super careful. Particularly if the person terminated is a member of a protected group like a minority. Terminating employees is (almost) never good for morale but if you have to let a lot of them go then you want to do it all at once, explain in general terms the business reason why but no specifics about a particular person and explain why you will not have to let anyone else go after this. I've seen first hand what happens to companies that try the slow band-aid removal method and the results are not pretty.
If they were fired for an actual business reason, that reason should not need to be kept a secret.
The reasons usually aren't a secret (office gossip might be the only thing that travels faster than light) but unless it is something like "we are getting out of this line of business" you have to be VERY careful about what you say. Any competent HR pro will tell you that terminating employees can be something of a legal minefield if you don't do it right. This includes employees that were terminated For Cause. Some of this caution is unfortunately absurd but it is equally necessary.
Pity that corporations like this always seem to want to lay everyone off at once, though. Why can't they do it gradually?
Because doing it gradually is a Really Bad Idea (TM). If you have to let people go you need to be able to tell the staff that is left that their jobs are safe and mean it. Otherwise morale goes in the toilet with people constantly wondering if they are next on the chopping block. I can show you tons of case studies where companies did layoffs a few at a time and the result was a staff that never was sure they'd have a job tomorrow and performance suffered accordingly. People start brushing up their resumes instead of doing the work they were hired for. Nobody likes layoffs but doing them gradually is far worse than doing it all at once.
I wonder how much the illegality of it figures into the convenience.
A lot. iTunes is probably the best example of this. Prior to iTunes, people turned to services like Napster. Partly because of money of course but a lot of it was simply convenience. They could actually find what they were looking for and get it for a modest investment. Then iTunes came along and people could find much of what they wanted, quickly and legally, in exchange for an amount of money they could live with. They no longer had to buy an album with 12 tracks of crap for $10 to get the 1 or 2 songs they actually wanted. Now people buy literally billions of songs all on the up and up because it is convenient and the price isn't a slap in the face.
Would they continue to want to go to the theater, which has a much larger screen and great sound, but which also costs a fair bit (and even more for any snacks you want, which are actually the theater's primary profit center) and which isn't as convenient in either time or space as having it at home?
If they value the things the theater provides then yes they will go. If they don't then they won't. Right now I think the value for money you get from most theaters is pretty poor. I get to sit in an uncomfortable chair with a sticky floor, pay $8-15 for a ticket, the only food is outrageously priced food you normally only get at a high school concession stand served by poorly trained high school students in unsanitary conditions. Gee, wonder why people might not enjoy that.
There are some theaters like Alamo Drafthouse down in Austin Texas which seem to get it and are trying to offer a better experience. I really wouldn't mind going to a movie and dropping some bucks for some actually good food, comfortable seats, amazing sound, cool extras, maybe a dvd to take home, etc.
I don't understand this rationalization. I agree that $25 is certainly wayyy too much money for most movies released to DVD. However that doesn't mean you automatically have a right to get it for free.
Not really expecting or asking for it for free. I'm asking for it for a reasonable price and for that price to be negotiated in good faith. If they can't be reasonable then neither will I. I play by the rules because I think it is the right thing to do but my willingness to do that does have limits. This is a zero sum game. Their costs are fixed so the publisher and I are just bargaining over how to split the dollar. I have no objection to them making a profit but only to a point. I'm willing to play by the rules but only as long as the other party appears to be willing to meet me part way. When they are trying to charge me $25 for a DVD then what the publisher is telling me is that they think they can take advantage of me. I don't really need or want to pirate any media (and I haven't) but if they piss me off enough I will not take the option off the table either even if it is technically against the law.
I go to the movie theater to get an experience and that experience is tangential to the actual movie itself. I go to a movie theater because either A) they have a large screen and great sound and other features (sometimes food) that I cannot reasonably replicate at home or B) I'm on a date or other social outing or C) both of the above. If I wanted to just see the movie and don't care if it is on a shitty little screen at home TV or my computer then the theater going experience has nothing to offer me. I go to see Godzilla in the theater because big monsters should be seen on a big screen with awesome sound. I go to see a RomCom in theaters because I'm on a date. Theaters need to cater to these reasons or there is no reason to go there. Places like Alamo Drafthouse seem to comprehend this.
As for media purchases, I'm more than happy to buy a copy of a DVD (or similar media) IF and only if the price is not outrageous. The price to buy a DVD should be similar or less than the cost to see the movie in theaters. I'm giving up a large screen and awesome sound but I can watch the movie repeatedly. If the movie publisher insists that their movie costs $25 to view on my shitty little screen at home, then they should damn well expect me to look for a more economical way to view that movie - possibly including piracy if I'm sufficiently motivated. I'm simply not willing to pay that much for a mediocre experience even if I can play it as much as I want. Sell the DVDs for reasonable prices and with minimal restrictions (such as no mandatory ads EVER) and most people will be willing to fork over a few bucks without much fuss. People buy music from iTunes because for them it is a reasonable economic value (in spite of its flaws. If they charged say $3/song I doubt it would be nearly as popular.
Basically if they provide a good product for a reasonable price, I'm happy to pay them for their work. If they insist on gouging me and place too many obstacles in my way then they should expect me to go around them and pay them nothing. If the movie turns out to be shitty I expect the price to reflect that fact quickly. I think most people feel similarly.
You must have a large family, or you save up a lot of dishes to justify using a dishwasher.
Nope. Just me and my wife. Usually have enough spare room in the dishwasher for a pan or two which often is all we need for a meal though I do end up washing many pans by hand, particular if they get stuck on crusty gunk. I don't mind washing them by hand but what's the point of having a dishwasher if you aren't going to use it? Plus the dishwasher can sterilize pans better than I can by hand which is necessary on occasion. Think of it like a low rent autoclave.
The flare pot looks nice and it might improve heat transfer. If the interior is also fluted, it would be very difficult to keep clean.
Interior is non-stick and would be impossible to use if fluted for most applications. Imagine trying to fry an egg in a fluted interior. It's not a bundt pan.
Personally I'd prefer it without the nonstick surface (or non-stick optional) and for it to be machine washable. With a few specialty exceptions all my pans are machine washable which is super convenient. If it is machine washable the cleaning issues self resolve by putting it in the dishwasher.
Whereas even small towns in France are packed with bookshops.
Of course they are. They are being subsidized by price floors. They don't have to compete on price or provide a better experience that people are willing to pay for. Price floors subsidize middlemen who otherwise would have no reason or ability to exist. If these bookstores are competing on price then consumers are getting screwed by paying more than they should. If the small bookstores are providing an experience beyond the book that people are willing to pay for then the price supports are unnecessary because they are not competing on price. Either way the price supports are a bad idea that only takes money out of the pockets of customers and gives it to businesses that arguably don't deserve it.