Except for the obvious problem: The lease secure devices are those pieces of Chinese shit that make it across the border yet can't even draw the FCC or CE logos correctly much less actually have proper certification.
This is before you actually realise that the liability on Part 15 lies 100% with the user and not at all with the manufacturer.
Due to the way that digital sampling works this waveform is not a real representation of the analogue reconstruction.
Without knowing the details of the analogue reconstruction filtering that you will have bolted on to your computer, how are they supposed to display it?
Yes I'm okay with Google reading my data because their profit motive aligns with my desire for the data to not be shared to every idiot with a spare dollar. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services. To do this their secret sauce recipe is the data they collect from you. That makes them much more likely to keep your data private and properly anonymise it when external parties come and request services.
Compare that to a company like Samsung who make money by selling physical things. I have no doubt that they don't give a shit about my data (they don't even bother encrypting it in transit). The highest bidder will happily end up with the entire data base and who knows maybe all the bidders will.
My data is being shared with whichever cloud / service provider I use to go about my daily high-tech life. Out of all of them I find it hard to trust a company more than Google because for once their profit motive aligns with my goals.
Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.
I could just ditch them. I could also go back to living in a cave. I could do a lot of things, but I won't.
For better or worse I trust Google with my information as I know it is in their best financial interest to keep that information private. If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it. Their corporate agenda aligns with my idea that my information should only be shared in a limited way.
The same can not be said for a company who's primary source of income is a physical product. They don't have much of an incentive to keep my data private.
SCO provided a list of source code files in the Linux kernel that infringe SCO's copyrights.
And got so incredibly slapped down that the company went insta-bankrupt. That's why this case here is called an "appeal". Until the appeals court rules otherwise, none of the code presented by SCO is considered infringing.
Maybe, it's just an estimate. My Leaf has a very efficient heat pump rated for 3kW, just for the cabin.
You didn't just compare the insulation of a car to house did you? The walls of my place have an insulation barrier close to 200mm thick, tripple pane glass, and I don't even live in Siberia.
We can also manufacture large diamonds for a fraction of what they actually sell. Point is, these materials are only worth excessive amounts in very specific forms. The raw materials are significantly cheaper in different forms and yet insanely useful.
People get put in jail for insider trading all the time. The problem is what looks like insider trading often isn't more than pure co-incidence. E.g. they sold stocks the day before the announcement? Have you tried selling company stock options before? With the restrictions in place they likely had been working on this sale for months, or it was scheduled as part of the standard remuneration vesting.
Watercoolers are for the interested or those managers that feign interest by talking down the line. This is Equifax we're talking about. I have no doubt that these people have an ivory tower built withing a cone of silence.
If I wanted to have to read the fine print on a box and look at minimum system specifications I would just play on a computer. What's the point of a console if they aren't all equal within the compatible generation?
"out of date" and "old" and "not powerful enough".
Given there's no games that run on the new one that don't run on the old one, given the same complaints aren't leveraged against Nintendo and quite the opposite: a lot of people are complaining that the graphics don't make a game better, and given that all they've achieved now is fractured their generation removing one of the more compelling reasons to own a console, I couldn't disagree with your post more.
Eliminate it and watch EV manufacturers bring the costs down in kind.
Err no. EVs have a bad name in the USA. That's the purpose of the subsidy. Remove the subsidy and watch EV's name get worse and manufacturers reduce efforts to sell and manufacture them.
As others have said, the credit disproportionately benefits people who (1) are in higher tax brackets (wealthy people), and (2) those who can afford electric vehicles (also wealthy people).
Good. Because the non-wealthy typically buy the second hand cars from the wealthy. Trickle down economics at its best.
By the way 14 of the 17 EVs on the USA market are worth less than the media new car sale price so you use the term "wealthy" very liberally.
The only people who own electric cars are in the Top 10% (usually Top 5%) of US earners.
Wow. Do you actually believe your bullshit? No really! With only 2 electric cars out of the 17 currently on the market in the USA actually being worth more than the "average" new car value? If I were in the top 10% I wouldn't be caught dead driving middle class garbage. I could bear driving a top model Tesla but they make up a fraction of EV sales in the USA.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas)
You meen specifically Teslas? The majority of EVs on the market that are below the average median new car cost.
the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
The effect of the subsidy is to get the middle class to buy into EVs. This in turn benefits the lower class in the end who buy the second hand vehicles from the middle class. It would be nice if the old retiree down the street could afford a second hand car that doesn't belch black smoke every time he needs to go down to the shop.
There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class
Horseshit. The sentence may have made more sense if you didn't move "Especially with the Teslas" to a different sentence. But you did, so horseshit.
But subsidizing $75,000 cars
What about $23000 Prius? What about the $30000 Leaf? What about the $37000 Bolt? What about the $42000 BMW i3? What about the $32000 500e? Or the $30000 Focus electric? The Kia Soul, The Mercedes B250e. Or on a budget the i-MiEV for a cool $22000?
You know what most of them share in common? Most of them are cheaper than the mean and median new car price. You know what all of them share in common? They would ALL be cheaper than the mean and median new car price if you include the subsidy.
Actually there's only 2 EVs on the market in the USA that wouldn't be cheaper: Tesla S Tesla X
What success? They are losing billions of dollars per year and when electric cars become popular, Tesla will probably be eclipsed completely by companies that actually know how to mass produce cars.
If that happens then Musk's original vision for Tesla will have been a roaring success.
If you want to be spared read a book, learn to research instead of just spouting off uneducated garbage. Until then you won't be spared. You will be ridiculed for your ignorance.
You don't have one yet? That is already quite common in Europe. I'd have an electric car too if I can afford it and I live in an apartment without a garage. I'd just park on the street and fill up on one of the street posts.
In some cities if you show your address, and your car registration the council will install a charging point in your street. In some cities you'll even end up with dedicated reserved parking that way (I know someone who doesn't give a shit about the environment and only got an electric car for this reason).
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the obvious problem: The lease secure devices are those pieces of Chinese shit that make it across the border yet can't even draw the FCC or CE logos correctly much less actually have proper certification.
This is before you actually realise that the liability on Part 15 lies 100% with the user and not at all with the manufacturer.
Due to the way that digital sampling works this waveform is not a real representation of the analogue reconstruction.
Without knowing the details of the analogue reconstruction filtering that you will have bolted on to your computer, how are they supposed to display it?
Yes I'm okay with Google reading my data because their profit motive aligns with my desire for the data to not be shared to every idiot with a spare dollar. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services. To do this their secret sauce recipe is the data they collect from you. That makes them much more likely to keep your data private and properly anonymise it when external parties come and request services.
Compare that to a company like Samsung who make money by selling physical things. I have no doubt that they don't give a shit about my data (they don't even bother encrypting it in transit). The highest bidder will happily end up with the entire data base and who knows maybe all the bidders will.
My data is being shared with whichever cloud / service provider I use to go about my daily high-tech life. Out of all of them I find it hard to trust a company more than Google because for once their profit motive aligns with my goals.
It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues
Yeah, and we've gotten nothing in return. Certainly no improvements in spam filtration, language processing, translation, personal assistants, etc. ...
Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.
I could just ditch them. I could also go back to living in a cave. I could do a lot of things, but I won't.
For better or worse I trust Google with my information as I know it is in their best financial interest to keep that information private. If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it. Their corporate agenda aligns with my idea that my information should only be shared in a limited way.
The same can not be said for a company who's primary source of income is a physical product. They don't have much of an incentive to keep my data private.
SCO provided a list of source code files in the Linux kernel that infringe SCO's copyrights.
And got so incredibly slapped down that the company went insta-bankrupt. That's why this case here is called an "appeal". Until the appeals court rules otherwise, none of the code presented by SCO is considered infringing.
Well I did just compare 200mm to 0.8mm of sheet metal. That's like ... orders of magnitude man :-)
EVs are still too expensive to appeal to anyone that's a fiscal conservative.
Yes except that literally half the cars that are sold on the market are more expensive than 14 of the 17 EVs on sale in the USA.
A clue. You need one.
Maybe, it's just an estimate. My Leaf has a very efficient heat pump rated for 3kW, just for the cabin.
You didn't just compare the insulation of a car to house did you? The walls of my place have an insulation barrier close to 200mm thick, tripple pane glass, and I don't even live in Siberia.
We can also manufacture large diamonds for a fraction of what they actually sell. Point is, these materials are only worth excessive amounts in very specific forms. The raw materials are significantly cheaper in different forms and yet insanely useful.
People get put in jail for insider trading all the time. The problem is what looks like insider trading often isn't more than pure co-incidence. E.g. they sold stocks the day before the announcement? Have you tried selling company stock options before? With the restrictions in place they likely had been working on this sale for months, or it was scheduled as part of the standard remuneration vesting.
Watercoolers are for the interested or those managers that feign interest by talking down the line. This is Equifax we're talking about. I have no doubt that these people have an ivory tower built withing a cone of silence.
who will always buy the latest and greatest offering in a given market segment
And this kind of fracture market segment was precisely what the console was immune to up until this point.
If I wanted to have to read the fine print on a box and look at minimum system specifications I would just play on a computer. What's the point of a console if they aren't all equal within the compatible generation?
"out of date" and "old" and "not powerful enough".
Given there's no games that run on the new one that don't run on the old one, given the same complaints aren't leveraged against Nintendo and quite the opposite: a lot of people are complaining that the graphics don't make a game better, and given that all they've achieved now is fractured their generation removing one of the more compelling reasons to own a console, I couldn't disagree with your post more.
hmmm that was a long sentence.
Eliminate it and watch EV manufacturers bring the costs down in kind.
Err no. EVs have a bad name in the USA. That's the purpose of the subsidy. Remove the subsidy and watch EV's name get worse and manufacturers reduce efforts to sell and manufacture them.
As others have said, the credit disproportionately benefits people who (1) are in higher tax brackets (wealthy people), and (2) those who can afford electric vehicles (also wealthy people).
Good. Because the non-wealthy typically buy the second hand cars from the wealthy. Trickle down economics at its best.
By the way 14 of the 17 EVs on the USA market are worth less than the media new car sale price so you use the term "wealthy" very liberally.
The only people who own electric cars are in the Top 10% (usually Top 5%) of US earners.
Wow. Do you actually believe your bullshit? No really! With only 2 electric cars out of the 17 currently on the market in the USA actually being worth more than the "average" new car value? If I were in the top 10% I wouldn't be caught dead driving middle class garbage. I could bear driving a top model Tesla but they make up a fraction of EV sales in the USA.
Even at $5341 it pushes every electric car other than the Tesla X, Tesla S and BMW i3 below the median new car value.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas)
You meen specifically Teslas? The majority of EVs on the market that are below the average median new car cost.
the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
The effect of the subsidy is to get the middle class to buy into EVs. This in turn benefits the lower class in the end who buy the second hand vehicles from the middle class. It would be nice if the old retiree down the street could afford a second hand car that doesn't belch black smoke every time he needs to go down to the shop.
There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class
Horseshit. The sentence may have made more sense if you didn't move "Especially with the Teslas" to a different sentence. But you did, so horseshit.
But subsidizing $75,000 cars
What about $23000 Prius?
What about the $30000 Leaf?
What about the $37000 Bolt?
What about the $42000 BMW i3?
What about the $32000 500e?
Or the $30000 Focus electric?
The Kia Soul, The Mercedes B250e.
Or on a budget the i-MiEV for a cool $22000?
You know what most of them share in common? Most of them are cheaper than the mean and median new car price. You know what all of them share in common? They would ALL be cheaper than the mean and median new car price if you include the subsidy.
Actually there's only 2 EVs on the market in the USA that wouldn't be cheaper:
Tesla S
Tesla X
What success? They are losing billions of dollars per year and when electric cars become popular, Tesla will probably be eclipsed completely by companies that actually know how to mass produce cars.
If that happens then Musk's original vision for Tesla will have been a roaring success.
So, in this case, the plan would actually stick it to the rich.
No. It sticks it to the middle class at a time where several EVs have become cheaper than the median sale price of a new car.
several kilowatts of heat
Only in the USA would you need several kilowatts of heat to keep a 20sqm space warm. Appropriate insulation and you can do it with less than 1.
so now they want to come out with number five?
No they don't.
Spare me...
If you want to be spared read a book, learn to research instead of just spouting off uneducated garbage. Until then you won't be spared. You will be ridiculed for your ignorance.
You don't have one yet? That is already quite common in Europe. I'd have an electric car too if I can afford it and I live in an apartment without a garage. I'd just park on the street and fill up on one of the street posts.
In some cities if you show your address, and your car registration the council will install a charging point in your street. In some cities you'll even end up with dedicated reserved parking that way (I know someone who doesn't give a shit about the environment and only got an electric car for this reason).