There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.
Species exist on a spectrum between complete selfishness (everything for me) and complete altruism (everything for the group). Some species tend more towards one end or the other of the spectrum. However the success of a species typically depends on the circumstances and the balance between the two. Our success depends on the tension between the two. Sometimes a little selfishness is good for the species as well as the individual. It's actually beneficial to society that I earn a good living instead of immediately donating every penny to charity. However never donating a dime isn't ideal either. The balance is somewhere in between.
E.O. Wilson wrote about this dynamic recently. Interesting read if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.
People laughed at the Tablet PC concept ~10 years ago... I laughed at it too mainly due to the ~$3000 price tag back then.
They didn't laugh at the concept, they laughed at the (pathetic) implementation. Microsoft tried to overlay using a stylus on windows as a sort of keyboard/mouse hybrid which is NOT what a stylus is good for. A stylus is good for *drawing* and nothing else. We take notes with a pen and what we are doing is drawing. The fact that we can draw characters is just a bonus side effect. Microsoft fundamentally misunderstood how a pen/stylus works and what it is good for.
I would actually love a tablet with a stylus option with the condition that the stylus be used for drawing ONLY. Not navigation (like a mouse) or as mass text input device (like a keyboard) but as a drawing tool in the same way we use it with a pen and notebook. That would be terrifically useful. But so far every developer gets all excited about character recognition or mistakes it for a mouse and screws up the interface in the process. The reason tablets are working well today is because they finally designed systems adjusted the operating system interface to be designed for finger input from the ground up.
The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming.
This always troubles me. Science doesn't actually work on consensus. A consensus will tend to be formed when data consistently supports a particular model but the mere fact that a majority of papers supports a particular theory is utterly meaningless by itself. The data either proves a model right or wrong, not whether most people agree with the model. While the consensus argument is easy to make and can be useful for political ends, it ultimately weakens the credibility of those making the consensus argument because it implies that science is something where we can vote our opinions regarding validity of a theory.
The much more interesting question is whether any of the remaining 2.9% of the papers disproves some aspect of climate change. It reminds me of the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein) which was a compilation of criticisms of the theory of relativity. Einstein replied "If I were wrong, one would have been enough".
I'm not. The primary application for any targeting system is military. The fact that it can be used for game or target practice is secondary.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Apparently it wasn't sufficiently obvious that I was talking about military applications. When you are trying to kill something dangerous it doesn't really matter if you or a computer does the actual aiming. However even if we are talking about hunting, the important decision was to pull the trigger. That is when the person controlling the weapon decided to kill something. Focusing on how the aiming is being done kind of misses the most important thing.
I don't really understand the point of "demonstrating your skills" by killing some harmless creature. That is just killing for fun which is frankly rather barbaric and certainly not very respectful of the life that was just ended. I don't object to hunting if you really need the food (not applicable for most of us) or if there are humane environmental considerations. But most hunters I know do it because they find it to be fun. They enjoy the act of killing something and sometimes they also enjoy the challenge of accomplishing that feat. But if they really wanted a challenge, why not do it with a knife or at worst a bow, up close and personal. Using a rifle that can kill at several hundred yards to hunt a woodland creature is not exactly a huge challenge. If you want to test your sharpshooting abilities, you don't need to kill something to do that. Hunting isn't evil but it frequently is pointless and cruel.
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger:
You cannot possibly be that naive. That specific weapon may not be used in combat but the basic technology will without a doubt make its way to people who will use it to kill living beings, either human or animal. I'm not even making a moral judgement about that, it's just a clearly obvious fact.
snipers would never use this,
They might not use that particular system but I promise you snipers can and will use a targeting/tracking system should one be available that fits their mission parameters. I would be deeply shocked if such technology was not being very actively worked on by the military.
it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range.
Technology can be miniaturized and will be. Furthermore if the technology is large and needs support, it isn't exactly hard to attach it to a vehicle. The military does it all the time.
This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
The technology is designed to cause a bullet to hit a target more reliably. The nature of the target is irrelevant. Plus you are contradicting yourself. If it can be used for hunting then it is portable. It if is designed for hunting there is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans beyond the fact that humans can (and will) shoot back.
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting.
The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?
With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
The reason the Supreme Court said that money = speech is that the primary use of money in politics is to fund political communications, primarily in the form of TV advertising these days.
Money enables publishing. It is not speech. Restricting spending for political ends to be the same for everyone does not restrict anyone's speech. They can still say whatever they have to say. They just can't say it say it (excessively) more than anyone else.
But the answer isn't to somehow mandate that people pay for others to communicate things that the payer disagrees with, nor to prohibit a person from paying to spread a message he does agree with.
I pay for things all the time that I disagree with. I'm sure you do as well. I very much would prefer my tax dollars not go to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Limiting political advertising to equal (and hopefully sane) levels is no different. Furthermore just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. I fund the salaries of Congress, many of whom I greatly disagree with but I'm ok with that.
Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.
There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.
Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money.
The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.
So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?
Yes. Next question.
The Tesla S is a luxury car and a very unique one at that. It's not remotely certain that Tesla will succeed and what sort of sales to expect. Outselling some very nice vehicles from MUCH better funded and established companies is very much a positive for Tesla.
When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.
Let me know when Lincoln manages to do that. When Ford can't do it, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect Tesla to do it as well.
Research Triangle area is practically the Silicon Valley of the south....and they're trying to Ban Tesla.
I have family in the Research Triangle area. Believe me when I say that the presence of some smart people and high tech companies hasn't reduced the dumb redneck population in the area very much. As my uncle puts it "there is a high Bubba factor around here".
why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in? why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??
For the same reason your money shouldn't go (solely) to a candidate *I* agree with. Because the debate should be about ideas and leadership, not who has the biggest bankroll. It is well established that special interest funding causes politicians to listen disproportionately to certain parties. If you fund a specific candidate then he is (potentially) obligated to you but he has to govern everyone. Why should he listen to your needs more than any other constituent just because you happened to fund the winning candidate?
Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.
I've always been mildly surprised that no one has argued that channel bundling violates Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. Basically the networks and cable companies are engaged in tying which can in some circumstances be illegal. While it may be legal in this case it seems to exist right on the edge of legality. I've never been convinced of the argument that channel bundling is in the best interest of the consumers and it certainly is only possible due to the market power of the companies involved.
Pretty much. They're pretty much getting their asses handed to them by Amazon, Apple and Google. I'm not sure I know anyone who actually owns a Nook though obviously they have been selling a fair number. When people think technology, Barnes & Noble isn't exactly the first name that springs to mind. Though the Nook seems to be a decent product it has the vague scent of desperation about it. Given what happened with Borders one has to wonder if they are buying a product that is going to be abandoned by B&N down the road.
Considering this a defensive system 2 kilometers means the high velocity threat is nearly on top of what you want to protect.
Let's say we have a cruise missile traveling at roughly mach 1 or about 1,150 kph - actually pretty slow compared to many missiles. That means that the missile would cover the 2 kilometers in about 6.25 seconds. Better have a hell of a good target tracking system...
Every car is spinable. The only questions are "how easily" and "how recoverable". And the answer to the second is more an issue of driver skill, not the car.
No argument that you can get the rear end to step out under at least some conditions unless traction control interferes. (I've driven a few cars that you simply cannot get to oversteer as long as traction control is on no matter how hard you try) As you note it is a question of driver skill. Most drivers aren't especially skilled so a car with unusual handling characteristics of the potentially dangerous sort is a real concern. Obviously many people drove the Bugs for decades without serious problems so we're talking about what in the grand scheme of things is a relatively minor (though interesting to a geek like me) problem.
I don't see how torsion beams are related.
What I'm talking about is how on this sort of suspension the camber changes continually whenever the wheel goes through jounce and rebound. This has the general effect of reducing the amount of rubber in contact with the road under any conditions other than straight and smooth roads. It gets worse when the rubber suspension bushings start to wear out which affects toe control. I think I remember people noting that VWs handled decent when new-ish but getting a bit wobbly over time as the bushings wore out. Other (more complicated) suspension designs try to mitigate this problem with varying degrees of success and (usually) added cost. It doesn't make the car necessarily oversteer but it will push the handling in that direction. Since the Bug was already prone to oversteer, it made the effect greater than it might have otherwise been. Like I said, by itself it isn't really a big deal most of the time but it can make a difference when you get close to the vehicle's handling limits.
I drove it for 10+ years and never figured out how to work the heater.
Ha! I'm not surprised. Probably just as well. The few times I was in one with a heater it wasn't exactly a lovely experience. The word "afterthought" comes to mind.
I never said they were well designed, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on that point so much when it was never in contention.
No worries. Just responding to the "the only problem" bit. Was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. The amount of enthusiasm for the old Bugs always struck me as rather excessive given that they were crappy cars in a lot of ways that matter.
All cars have thorttle-lift oversteer. It's harder to catch and more likely to result in spin for a rear-heavy car, so I don't see how the suspension addresses any of that.
While it is possible conditions to induce oversteer in any car at least under some conditions, most cars generally understeer and lift-off oversteer is very difficult to induce by design, especially in front engined front drive vehicles. Rear engine rear drive cars such as the older 911s and Bugs however are very prone to having the rear end step out in an extremely dangerous manner which drivers of average or lower talent are ill equipped to deal with. Part of the problem is simply the physics of the engine being in the rear which can't really be changed. But if you drive one of the more modern 911s they have largely solved the problem with suspension design, modern tires and various bits of clever traction control. The torsion beam suspensions in the old Bugs wasn't the only source of the problem but it was a significant contributing factor. Torsion beam designs are more prone to oversteer than certain other designs. Combine that with light weight, thin and not very grippy tires, no traction control, and a heavy rear end and you end up with a potentially dangerous oversteer problem.
They did not get great gas mileage *per horsepower* or much horsepower at all for that matter as you noted. Furthermore there were cars with notably better fuel economy available at the same time as the VW Bug. The reason their engines often lasted was that the engine was air cooled. Air cooled engines are generally a fair bit more reliable than water cooled engines.
The only problem with the VW was that the odometer rolled over at 100,000...
The "only problem"? There was a LOT more wrong with the VW bug than just the odometer. The rear engine and bad suspension design tended to cause trailing throttle oversteer". they are terribly unsafe in a crash, they have 0-60 times measured in geologic time, their fuel economy per horsepower is actually quite poor, the climate controls were horrible, especially the "heater", etc. Sure they were inexpensive to build and easy to service but like most VWs they require an excessive amount of servicing. (I've had a Scirroco, a GTI, a Golf, and a Jetta over the years and I'm VERY familiar with VWs) Some of the engineering in them is quite admirable (I do like the servicability) but there is quite a lot about the old VW Bug that is quite badly designed.
Of course, things manufactured that long ago were also much simpler. The simpler a device, the less likely it is to fail, generally speaking. When you put a device made of a dozen electronic components up against a device made of hundreds or thousands, it's no wonder that the latter doesn't last as long--all it takes is one failed component to stop the whole thing dead.
Be careful with that assertion. Simpler often correlates with reliability but it isn't necessarily a cause of reliability. It is easy to demonstrate cases where simpler does not equal more reliable. Vehicles from 40 years ago were lucky to see 100,000 miles despite having a much simpler design. A modern car is quite a bit more complex in design but they also are hugely more reliable and perform better as well.
This, because all I really want is an empty place to mount my iPad in the dash where some cars have their nav/climate control/etc. displays. I'd rather throw that expensive and utterly useless crap out and just plug in an iPad. In fact I'd actually buy an iPad if I could do that.
It sounds appealing but I'm not sure you've really thought it through. The interface on an iPad is not designed with driving in mind. Your attention needs to be mostly on the road and the iPad interface is not designed to accommodate that fact. Using an iPad while driving would take a rather significant redesign of the interface. I don't even want to think about all the idiots who would try to email or text on it while driving.
There also are driving conditions (glare, temperature, brightness, vibration, etc) to consider which are different in a car than on your couch. IPads are designed to operate between 0C and 35C (32F and 95F) and cars experience both hotter and colder temperatures than this regularly.
Bonus points if they would work with Apple and add some USB devices such that the iPad could monitor some aspects of the car (speed, fuel level, climate control, etc.)
I'd like to see a car maker have the courage to go in the opposite direction - simpler engineering that's easier and more affordable to maintain over the life of a vehicle.
My current vehicle hasn't had to have any servicing of any kind aside from routine fluid and brake changes and it has 100,000 miles on it. Explain to me how a simpler vehicle is going to make that any easier or more affordable. I have had to fix NOTHING. Kinda hard to be easier than that.
Back in the 50's and 60's it was much easier for a kid to pop the hood and learn to tear down and rebuild an engine.
Just because it was simpler in some ways doesn't mean it was better. Vehicles on the road today are vastly more reliable and perform far better than those from 40+ years ago. The electronics on the vehicle have a lot to do with those improvements. I drove cars from the 60's and 70s when I was a younger lad and compared to what is available now they were pieces of crap. Their "simpler" engines got terrible fuel economy per horsepower and broke down constantly. Engines would be lucky to make it to 100,000 miles - now it's rare that they do not go for 150-200,000 miles. We don't use carburetors in cars anymore because computerized fuel injection systems work better in pretty much every way that matters. We have engine electronics so that the vehicle can sense changes in environment and optimize vehicle performance for the conditions on the fly. Those electronics aren't on the vehicle just to annoy you and cost more. They are there because they make the vehicle perform better and more reliably.
Laptops also have reliability needs and there are quite modern laptop HDDs that have been used in millions of laptops for months.
The vibration and shock requirements for a laptop are quite different from those of a motor vehicle. The difference can be overcome but a car is generally speaking a harsher environment than that experienced by most laptops.
I've worked directly with a lot of VCs and private equity guys.
First question you have to ask is "do I really want VC money?" Make no bones about it, VCs will scalp you. They will take control of the company and there is a good chance you will be pushed out. (No you will not retain control ala Mark Zuckerberg in all likelihood) Furthermore the cost of capital from a VC is VERY VERY high. They expect a big return on their investment. If you can fund your company with Angel investors, loans, friends and family, etc, then do that. You'll come out better in the long run most likely. Most people that think they want VC money really don't. I know it's a bit of a cultural thing in Silicon Valley but even the VCs will tell you that you don't want their money if you don't need it.
If you decide that VC money is still the best way to go then yes they will want to see the technical details of your product. They will do considerable due diligence regarding it and they will call in experts they trust to look it over. However you don't need to get carried away with technical details in the initial meetings. What they are going to be looking for is a business model around the technology that they can develop. VCs aren't typically going to want to develop the business themselves - they want to invest in people who are going to develop the business. They may bring in their own people to help or take over if needed. So what you need is to be able to explain very concisely who you are and why you are worth investing in, why this technology matters, what the market opportunity is, who the competition is and how you will overcome them, and how the VCs will be able to get a return on their investment. You should be able to say all of the above in 60 seconds or less.
Don't assume your technology is unique from a business standpoint - it probably isn't. There will be competing products out there and you'll need to explain why your technology is special and more importantly why you and your team are especially positioned to take advantage of whatever market opportunity you see.
Frankly VCs will be less interested in the technical details than in is your business plan and especially in the team you have around you to execute said business plan. VCs really don't invest as much in technology as they do in the people who are trying to bring that technology to market. They are investing in YOU more than anything else. Tell them about your leadership team. Show them your team has a track record of bringing technologies to market successfully. Guys like Elon Musk can raise money for almost anything because of their track record. If you don't have a track record of building successful businesses, get people on board who do BEFORE you try to talk to VCs. Get a team of advisors who can poke holes in your business plan and help you get on the road to success.
Finally, VCs tend to specialize. Odds are most won't be interested in what you have. Kind of like publishers you have to look around for the right one and you'll probably get a lot of doors (politely) slammed in your face. The VC community is a small one and they tend to all know each other. Don't be rude or talk smack about anyone else because word will get around.
Take an Asian market (mine is in Korea b/c i lived there for a year)...so much commerce happens in Asian open-air style markets. Billions of transactions. Virtually **zero** marketing...why?
If you think there is no marketing occurring in those markets you are very confused about what marketing is. Most of the products you buy in a local market like the one you describe (I've been to plenty of them in China and Southeast Asia) sell branded products or knockoffs of same. A lot of marketing has already been done by the big companies that produce the product. Brands matter for a lot of reasons. More is done by the shop owner when they try to make their products attractive to customers. The shop owner has to spend valuable time at the market to sell their wares by building a relationship with potential customers. That is hard and expensive and time consuming. There is a TON of marketing going on even if you aren't really aware of it.
You seem to be under the illusion that only big companies do marketing. Further you seem to be confusing marketing with sales. Marketing is the act of creating awareness of who you are and what you are selling and why they should buy it from you. Sales is the art of negotiating the details of the transaction. Both are necessary parts of the equation. Most products can be bought from more than one vendor and most products have substitute products they have to compete with. Why should they buy yours instead of the other guy's? What benefits does what you are selling have compared with the price you are requesting? How does the customer become aware of the existence of you, your product and why they might consider buying it from you? These are not trivial questions with trivial answers.
And humans will always need resources. Marx's theories are instructive here.
Really? You're going to cite Marx as a source of economic theory? You need to spend some time trying to actually sell something to real customers. You're not going to find anyone who has tried to actually run a business or sell a product to actual people spouting Marx as being instructive of anything.
Am I just being cynical when I say that my company spends almost 15 times as much trying to convince the outside world that we make a good product, than it spends on actually making a good product?
Short answer, yes you are being needlessly cynical.
Longer answer, don't underestimate how hard it is to sell any product, even a very good one. Further, it isn't a moral issue. Activities cost what they cost. Pick any software company you care to mention and you'll find that their engineering costs are somewhere between 10-20% of total expenses. Most of the rest is the cost of sales and administration with sales and marketing accounting for the lions share of the expense. The reason for that isn't because the sales team is wasting money but because it requires a lot of resources to convince people to buy something. The activities used to sell products frequently don't benefit from economies of scale and like basic research have uncertain paybacks on the investment.
Frankly I think it is a worthwhile exercise for every engineer to spend some time trying to sell their product. Engineers too often are dismissive of sales and marketing and they shouldn't be. A good sales man is an incredibly valuable asset and frequently harder to find than a good engineer. I run a company where we are pretty good on the engineering but until recently were pretty bad at sales. (we're still not great but improving) And the result showed. We make a good product but that isn't enough by itself.
And I'm sure Apple has done the analysis to ensure that if they could use thinner cardboard, they would to save money.
I'm sure they have as well and they've chosen to use thicker cardboard than necessary for marketing reasons. It takes a little searching to find but Apple has admitted publicly that their packaging is very much overbuilt to convey an image of quality from the moment you get your hands on the box. It's actually quite a clever detail and my guess is that they believe (perhaps rightly) the perception of quality is worth more revenue than the cost savings from using only the minimum amount of packaging required.
As an example, the last time I bought a phone from Apple it was shipped to me direct from the factory. They could have packaged it in the box that it shipped in but instead they packaged the phone's box inside another box which is wasteful. I understand why they did it but that does not mitigate the fact that they used more packaging that was actually necessary. The very nice iPhone box was entirely unnecessary in that case and served no functional purpose regarding delivery.
As for wastefulness of paper - note that making electronics involves using tons of nasty chemicals and poisons, tons of water and lots of energy as well.
Very true but largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't follow that just because the electronics were toxic to produce that somehow mitigates the environmental impact of paper production. That's like saying we should ignore a misdemeanor because the same person committed a felony as well. Apple could reduce their paper usage but has chosen not to do so for marketing reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.
Species exist on a spectrum between complete selfishness (everything for me) and complete altruism (everything for the group). Some species tend more towards one end or the other of the spectrum. However the success of a species typically depends on the circumstances and the balance between the two. Our success depends on the tension between the two. Sometimes a little selfishness is good for the species as well as the individual. It's actually beneficial to society that I earn a good living instead of immediately donating every penny to charity. However never donating a dime isn't ideal either. The balance is somewhere in between.
E.O. Wilson wrote about this dynamic recently. Interesting read if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.
People laughed at the Tablet PC concept ~10 years ago... I laughed at it too mainly due to the ~$3000 price tag back then.
They didn't laugh at the concept, they laughed at the (pathetic) implementation. Microsoft tried to overlay using a stylus on windows as a sort of keyboard/mouse hybrid which is NOT what a stylus is good for. A stylus is good for *drawing* and nothing else. We take notes with a pen and what we are doing is drawing. The fact that we can draw characters is just a bonus side effect. Microsoft fundamentally misunderstood how a pen/stylus works and what it is good for.
I would actually love a tablet with a stylus option with the condition that the stylus be used for drawing ONLY. Not navigation (like a mouse) or as mass text input device (like a keyboard) but as a drawing tool in the same way we use it with a pen and notebook. That would be terrifically useful. But so far every developer gets all excited about character recognition or mistakes it for a mouse and screws up the interface in the process. The reason tablets are working well today is because they finally designed systems adjusted the operating system interface to be designed for finger input from the ground up.
The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming.
This always troubles me. Science doesn't actually work on consensus. A consensus will tend to be formed when data consistently supports a particular model but the mere fact that a majority of papers supports a particular theory is utterly meaningless by itself. The data either proves a model right or wrong, not whether most people agree with the model. While the consensus argument is easy to make and can be useful for political ends, it ultimately weakens the credibility of those making the consensus argument because it implies that science is something where we can vote our opinions regarding validity of a theory.
The much more interesting question is whether any of the remaining 2.9% of the papers disproves some aspect of climate change. It reminds me of the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein) which was a compilation of criticisms of the theory of relativity. Einstein replied "If I were wrong, one would have been enough".
(I'm excluding military applications for this)
I'm not. The primary application for any targeting system is military. The fact that it can be used for game or target practice is secondary.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Apparently it wasn't sufficiently obvious that I was talking about military applications. When you are trying to kill something dangerous it doesn't really matter if you or a computer does the actual aiming. However even if we are talking about hunting, the important decision was to pull the trigger. That is when the person controlling the weapon decided to kill something. Focusing on how the aiming is being done kind of misses the most important thing.
I don't really understand the point of "demonstrating your skills" by killing some harmless creature. That is just killing for fun which is frankly rather barbaric and certainly not very respectful of the life that was just ended. I don't object to hunting if you really need the food (not applicable for most of us) or if there are humane environmental considerations. But most hunters I know do it because they find it to be fun. They enjoy the act of killing something and sometimes they also enjoy the challenge of accomplishing that feat. But if they really wanted a challenge, why not do it with a knife or at worst a bow, up close and personal. Using a rifle that can kill at several hundred yards to hunt a woodland creature is not exactly a huge challenge. If you want to test your sharpshooting abilities, you don't need to kill something to do that. Hunting isn't evil but it frequently is pointless and cruel.
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger:
You cannot possibly be that naive. That specific weapon may not be used in combat but the basic technology will without a doubt make its way to people who will use it to kill living beings, either human or animal. I'm not even making a moral judgement about that, it's just a clearly obvious fact.
snipers would never use this,
They might not use that particular system but I promise you snipers can and will use a targeting/tracking system should one be available that fits their mission parameters. I would be deeply shocked if such technology was not being very actively worked on by the military.
it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range.
Technology can be miniaturized and will be. Furthermore if the technology is large and needs support, it isn't exactly hard to attach it to a vehicle. The military does it all the time.
This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
The technology is designed to cause a bullet to hit a target more reliably. The nature of the target is irrelevant. Plus you are contradicting yourself. If it can be used for hunting then it is portable. It if is designed for hunting there is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans beyond the fact that humans can (and will) shoot back.
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting.
The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?
With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
The reason the Supreme Court said that money = speech is that the primary use of money in politics is to fund political communications, primarily in the form of TV advertising these days.
Money enables publishing. It is not speech. Restricting spending for political ends to be the same for everyone does not restrict anyone's speech. They can still say whatever they have to say. They just can't say it say it (excessively) more than anyone else.
But the answer isn't to somehow mandate that people pay for others to communicate things that the payer disagrees with, nor to prohibit a person from paying to spread a message he does agree with.
I pay for things all the time that I disagree with. I'm sure you do as well. I very much would prefer my tax dollars not go to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Limiting political advertising to equal (and hopefully sane) levels is no different. Furthermore just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. I fund the salaries of Congress, many of whom I greatly disagree with but I'm ok with that.
Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.
There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.
Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money.
The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.
So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?
Yes. Next question.
The Tesla S is a luxury car and a very unique one at that. It's not remotely certain that Tesla will succeed and what sort of sales to expect. Outselling some very nice vehicles from MUCH better funded and established companies is very much a positive for Tesla.
When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.
Let me know when Lincoln manages to do that. When Ford can't do it, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect Tesla to do it as well.
Research Triangle area is practically the Silicon Valley of the south. ...and they're trying to Ban Tesla.
I have family in the Research Triangle area. Believe me when I say that the presence of some smart people and high tech companies hasn't reduced the dumb redneck population in the area very much. As my uncle puts it "there is a high Bubba factor around here".
why? why should I not be allowed to support the candidate I believe in? why should my money be pooled and given to politicians I dont agree with??
For the same reason your money shouldn't go (solely) to a candidate *I* agree with. Because the debate should be about ideas and leadership, not who has the biggest bankroll. It is well established that special interest funding causes politicians to listen disproportionately to certain parties. If you fund a specific candidate then he is (potentially) obligated to you but he has to govern everyone. Why should he listen to your needs more than any other constituent just because you happened to fund the winning candidate?
Money gives people a disproportionate voice in the political system. I think the Supreme Court erred greatly when it said that money = speech. One should not prohibit people from spending money on political activities but one should not give someone a bigger voice simply because they have access to more money either. While I don't think you can take money completely out of the equation, we don't have to let it dominate the conversation the way we have either. Our congressional representatives spend virtually all their time fundraising instead of thinking about how to make this country a better place. As soon as they win one election they start fundraising for the next. That cannot possibly be good for the country as a whole.
I've always been mildly surprised that no one has argued that channel bundling violates Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. Basically the networks and cable companies are engaged in tying which can in some circumstances be illegal. While it may be legal in this case it seems to exist right on the edge of legality. I've never been convinced of the argument that channel bundling is in the best interest of the consumers and it certainly is only possible due to the market power of the companies involved.
So Nook was a failure for B&N?
Pretty much. They're pretty much getting their asses handed to them by Amazon, Apple and Google. I'm not sure I know anyone who actually owns a Nook though obviously they have been selling a fair number. When people think technology, Barnes & Noble isn't exactly the first name that springs to mind. Though the Nook seems to be a decent product it has the vague scent of desperation about it. Given what happened with Borders one has to wonder if they are buying a product that is going to be abandoned by B&N down the road.
Considering this a defensive system 2 kilometers means the high velocity threat is nearly on top of what you want to protect.
Let's say we have a cruise missile traveling at roughly mach 1 or about 1,150 kph - actually pretty slow compared to many missiles. That means that the missile would cover the 2 kilometers in about 6.25 seconds. Better have a hell of a good target tracking system...
Every car is spinable. The only questions are "how easily" and "how recoverable". And the answer to the second is more an issue of driver skill, not the car.
No argument that you can get the rear end to step out under at least some conditions unless traction control interferes. (I've driven a few cars that you simply cannot get to oversteer as long as traction control is on no matter how hard you try) As you note it is a question of driver skill. Most drivers aren't especially skilled so a car with unusual handling characteristics of the potentially dangerous sort is a real concern. Obviously many people drove the Bugs for decades without serious problems so we're talking about what in the grand scheme of things is a relatively minor (though interesting to a geek like me) problem.
I don't see how torsion beams are related.
What I'm talking about is how on this sort of suspension the camber changes continually whenever the wheel goes through jounce and rebound. This has the general effect of reducing the amount of rubber in contact with the road under any conditions other than straight and smooth roads. It gets worse when the rubber suspension bushings start to wear out which affects toe control. I think I remember people noting that VWs handled decent when new-ish but getting a bit wobbly over time as the bushings wore out. Other (more complicated) suspension designs try to mitigate this problem with varying degrees of success and (usually) added cost. It doesn't make the car necessarily oversteer but it will push the handling in that direction. Since the Bug was already prone to oversteer, it made the effect greater than it might have otherwise been. Like I said, by itself it isn't really a big deal most of the time but it can make a difference when you get close to the vehicle's handling limits.
I drove it for 10+ years and never figured out how to work the heater.
Ha! I'm not surprised. Probably just as well. The few times I was in one with a heater it wasn't exactly a lovely experience. The word "afterthought" comes to mind.
I never said they were well designed, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on that point so much when it was never in contention.
No worries. Just responding to the "the only problem" bit. Was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. The amount of enthusiasm for the old Bugs always struck me as rather excessive given that they were crappy cars in a lot of ways that matter.
All cars have thorttle-lift oversteer. It's harder to catch and more likely to result in spin for a rear-heavy car, so I don't see how the suspension addresses any of that.
While it is possible conditions to induce oversteer in any car at least under some conditions, most cars generally understeer and lift-off oversteer is very difficult to induce by design, especially in front engined front drive vehicles. Rear engine rear drive cars such as the older 911s and Bugs however are very prone to having the rear end step out in an extremely dangerous manner which drivers of average or lower talent are ill equipped to deal with. Part of the problem is simply the physics of the engine being in the rear which can't really be changed. But if you drive one of the more modern 911s they have largely solved the problem with suspension design, modern tires and various bits of clever traction control. The torsion beam suspensions in the old Bugs wasn't the only source of the problem but it was a significant contributing factor. Torsion beam designs are more prone to oversteer than certain other designs. Combine that with light weight, thin and not very grippy tires, no traction control, and a heavy rear end and you end up with a potentially dangerous oversteer problem.
a '67 Bug got great mileage and lasted.
They did not get great gas mileage *per horsepower* or much horsepower at all for that matter as you noted. Furthermore there were cars with notably better fuel economy available at the same time as the VW Bug. The reason their engines often lasted was that the engine was air cooled. Air cooled engines are generally a fair bit more reliable than water cooled engines.
The only problem with the VW was that the odometer rolled over at 100,000...
The "only problem"? There was a LOT more wrong with the VW bug than just the odometer. The rear engine and bad suspension design tended to cause trailing throttle oversteer". they are terribly unsafe in a crash, they have 0-60 times measured in geologic time, their fuel economy per horsepower is actually quite poor, the climate controls were horrible, especially the "heater", etc. Sure they were inexpensive to build and easy to service but like most VWs they require an excessive amount of servicing. (I've had a Scirroco, a GTI, a Golf, and a Jetta over the years and I'm VERY familiar with VWs) Some of the engineering in them is quite admirable (I do like the servicability) but there is quite a lot about the old VW Bug that is quite badly designed.
Of course, things manufactured that long ago were also much simpler. The simpler a device, the less likely it is to fail, generally speaking. When you put a device made of a dozen electronic components up against a device made of hundreds or thousands, it's no wonder that the latter doesn't last as long--all it takes is one failed component to stop the whole thing dead.
Be careful with that assertion. Simpler often correlates with reliability but it isn't necessarily a cause of reliability. It is easy to demonstrate cases where simpler does not equal more reliable. Vehicles from 40 years ago were lucky to see 100,000 miles despite having a much simpler design. A modern car is quite a bit more complex in design but they also are hugely more reliable and perform better as well.
This, because all I really want is an empty place to mount my iPad in the dash where some cars have their nav/climate control/etc. displays. I'd rather throw that expensive and utterly useless crap out and just plug in an iPad. In fact I'd actually buy an iPad if I could do that.
It sounds appealing but I'm not sure you've really thought it through. The interface on an iPad is not designed with driving in mind. Your attention needs to be mostly on the road and the iPad interface is not designed to accommodate that fact. Using an iPad while driving would take a rather significant redesign of the interface. I don't even want to think about all the idiots who would try to email or text on it while driving.
There also are driving conditions (glare, temperature, brightness, vibration, etc) to consider which are different in a car than on your couch. IPads are designed to operate between 0C and 35C (32F and 95F) and cars experience both hotter and colder temperatures than this regularly.
Bonus points if they would work with Apple and add some USB devices such that the iPad could monitor some aspects of the car (speed, fuel level, climate control, etc.)
You can already do this via the OBD-II ports.
I'd like to see a car maker have the courage to go in the opposite direction - simpler engineering that's easier and more affordable to maintain over the life of a vehicle.
My current vehicle hasn't had to have any servicing of any kind aside from routine fluid and brake changes and it has 100,000 miles on it. Explain to me how a simpler vehicle is going to make that any easier or more affordable. I have had to fix NOTHING. Kinda hard to be easier than that.
Back in the 50's and 60's it was much easier for a kid to pop the hood and learn to tear down and rebuild an engine.
Just because it was simpler in some ways doesn't mean it was better. Vehicles on the road today are vastly more reliable and perform far better than those from 40+ years ago. The electronics on the vehicle have a lot to do with those improvements. I drove cars from the 60's and 70s when I was a younger lad and compared to what is available now they were pieces of crap. Their "simpler" engines got terrible fuel economy per horsepower and broke down constantly. Engines would be lucky to make it to 100,000 miles - now it's rare that they do not go for 150-200,000 miles. We don't use carburetors in cars anymore because computerized fuel injection systems work better in pretty much every way that matters. We have engine electronics so that the vehicle can sense changes in environment and optimize vehicle performance for the conditions on the fly. Those electronics aren't on the vehicle just to annoy you and cost more. They are there because they make the vehicle perform better and more reliably.
Laptops also have reliability needs and there are quite modern laptop HDDs that have been used in millions of laptops for months.
The vibration and shock requirements for a laptop are quite different from those of a motor vehicle. The difference can be overcome but a car is generally speaking a harsher environment than that experienced by most laptops.
I've worked directly with a lot of VCs and private equity guys.
First question you have to ask is "do I really want VC money?" Make no bones about it, VCs will scalp you. They will take control of the company and there is a good chance you will be pushed out. (No you will not retain control ala Mark Zuckerberg in all likelihood) Furthermore the cost of capital from a VC is VERY VERY high. They expect a big return on their investment. If you can fund your company with Angel investors, loans, friends and family, etc, then do that. You'll come out better in the long run most likely. Most people that think they want VC money really don't. I know it's a bit of a cultural thing in Silicon Valley but even the VCs will tell you that you don't want their money if you don't need it.
If you decide that VC money is still the best way to go then yes they will want to see the technical details of your product. They will do considerable due diligence regarding it and they will call in experts they trust to look it over. However you don't need to get carried away with technical details in the initial meetings. What they are going to be looking for is a business model around the technology that they can develop. VCs aren't typically going to want to develop the business themselves - they want to invest in people who are going to develop the business. They may bring in their own people to help or take over if needed. So what you need is to be able to explain very concisely who you are and why you are worth investing in, why this technology matters, what the market opportunity is, who the competition is and how you will overcome them, and how the VCs will be able to get a return on their investment. You should be able to say all of the above in 60 seconds or less.
Don't assume your technology is unique from a business standpoint - it probably isn't. There will be competing products out there and you'll need to explain why your technology is special and more importantly why you and your team are especially positioned to take advantage of whatever market opportunity you see.
Frankly VCs will be less interested in the technical details than in is your business plan and especially in the team you have around you to execute said business plan. VCs really don't invest as much in technology as they do in the people who are trying to bring that technology to market. They are investing in YOU more than anything else. Tell them about your leadership team. Show them your team has a track record of bringing technologies to market successfully. Guys like Elon Musk can raise money for almost anything because of their track record. If you don't have a track record of building successful businesses, get people on board who do BEFORE you try to talk to VCs. Get a team of advisors who can poke holes in your business plan and help you get on the road to success.
Finally, VCs tend to specialize. Odds are most won't be interested in what you have. Kind of like publishers you have to look around for the right one and you'll probably get a lot of doors (politely) slammed in your face. The VC community is a small one and they tend to all know each other. Don't be rude or talk smack about anyone else because word will get around.
Take an Asian market (mine is in Korea b/c i lived there for a year)...so much commerce happens in Asian open-air style markets. Billions of transactions. Virtually **zero** marketing...why?
If you think there is no marketing occurring in those markets you are very confused about what marketing is. Most of the products you buy in a local market like the one you describe (I've been to plenty of them in China and Southeast Asia) sell branded products or knockoffs of same. A lot of marketing has already been done by the big companies that produce the product. Brands matter for a lot of reasons. More is done by the shop owner when they try to make their products attractive to customers. The shop owner has to spend valuable time at the market to sell their wares by building a relationship with potential customers. That is hard and expensive and time consuming. There is a TON of marketing going on even if you aren't really aware of it.
You seem to be under the illusion that only big companies do marketing. Further you seem to be confusing marketing with sales. Marketing is the act of creating awareness of who you are and what you are selling and why they should buy it from you. Sales is the art of negotiating the details of the transaction. Both are necessary parts of the equation. Most products can be bought from more than one vendor and most products have substitute products they have to compete with. Why should they buy yours instead of the other guy's? What benefits does what you are selling have compared with the price you are requesting? How does the customer become aware of the existence of you, your product and why they might consider buying it from you? These are not trivial questions with trivial answers.
And humans will always need resources. Marx's theories are instructive here.
Really? You're going to cite Marx as a source of economic theory? You need to spend some time trying to actually sell something to real customers. You're not going to find anyone who has tried to actually run a business or sell a product to actual people spouting Marx as being instructive of anything.
Am I just being cynical when I say that my company spends almost 15 times as much trying to convince the outside world that we make a good product, than it spends on actually making a good product?
Short answer, yes you are being needlessly cynical.
Longer answer, don't underestimate how hard it is to sell any product, even a very good one. Further, it isn't a moral issue. Activities cost what they cost. Pick any software company you care to mention and you'll find that their engineering costs are somewhere between 10-20% of total expenses. Most of the rest is the cost of sales and administration with sales and marketing accounting for the lions share of the expense. The reason for that isn't because the sales team is wasting money but because it requires a lot of resources to convince people to buy something. The activities used to sell products frequently don't benefit from economies of scale and like basic research have uncertain paybacks on the investment.
Frankly I think it is a worthwhile exercise for every engineer to spend some time trying to sell their product. Engineers too often are dismissive of sales and marketing and they shouldn't be. A good sales man is an incredibly valuable asset and frequently harder to find than a good engineer. I run a company where we are pretty good on the engineering but until recently were pretty bad at sales. (we're still not great but improving) And the result showed. We make a good product but that isn't enough by itself.
And I'm sure Apple has done the analysis to ensure that if they could use thinner cardboard, they would to save money.
I'm sure they have as well and they've chosen to use thicker cardboard than necessary for marketing reasons. It takes a little searching to find but Apple has admitted publicly that their packaging is very much overbuilt to convey an image of quality from the moment you get your hands on the box. It's actually quite a clever detail and my guess is that they believe (perhaps rightly) the perception of quality is worth more revenue than the cost savings from using only the minimum amount of packaging required.
As an example, the last time I bought a phone from Apple it was shipped to me direct from the factory. They could have packaged it in the box that it shipped in but instead they packaged the phone's box inside another box which is wasteful. I understand why they did it but that does not mitigate the fact that they used more packaging that was actually necessary. The very nice iPhone box was entirely unnecessary in that case and served no functional purpose regarding delivery.
As for wastefulness of paper - note that making electronics involves using tons of nasty chemicals and poisons, tons of water and lots of energy as well.
Very true but largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't follow that just because the electronics were toxic to produce that somehow mitigates the environmental impact of paper production. That's like saying we should ignore a misdemeanor because the same person committed a felony as well. Apple could reduce their paper usage but has chosen not to do so for marketing reasons.