GM, Ford and Chrysler have the plants that can produce the majority of what goes into a car: chassis, assembly line,...etc. An electric motor is not a big deal to make.
Renault, Mercedes, BMW disagree and have just invested lots of money to NOT use existing assembly lines as they discovered that it's actually a pretty damn big deal to make an electric car,... on and so has Tesla who also owned a full production plant from Honda.
It's due to a complex economic model that takes into account a wide variety of variables. Blaming a single isolated component of that is just sheer ignorance.
despite them not winning the popular vote in a semi-democratic First-Past-The-Post system.
That's interesting. I think I'm reading praise for FPTP systems. In the mean time countries who have this system often wish they didn't because there's nothing democratic about the natural stable end result of FPTP: A 2 party system.
if we could transmute lead into gold, we would - if only for practical applications in using it.
No we wouldn't. The wonderful thing about those industrial properties is that you don't need much gold at all, and you don't need pure gold either. What you have is ultimately a component that is a small factor in the cost of whatever your end product is. You'd basically need to convert lead to gold for free in order for it to even be remotely viable.
Of course the Music Industry matters. They have money. They may not matter for the industry, but they certainly matter for poor politicians desperate for donations.
On top of this the comment acts like you just flip a switch and produce a power efficient processor. Moving to ARM would involve a product that they aren't overly familiar with, in a platform (non-plug and play) that both companies generally don't have much experience with, and god forbid they may actually need to pay license fees without any guaranteed ROI.
This! I'm surprised here on a nerd news site that many commentators don't know that "Cloud" is more than "opening Excel in a browser and storing files".
Microsoft's MFA isn't just about accessing Microsoft's Cloud. They also form the basis of SSO solutions that can be deployed in corporate and personal infrastructure.
This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
To take my very real life into your analogy I can't. I live in a Hotel. I am at the mercy of the breakfast hours of restaurants. I actively tell people at work not to book meetings at 7am with me as a result.
Likewise MFA isn't just about accessing Word or Outlook. MFA from Microsoft can be deployed as the SSO option for an entire corporate infrastructure. If MFA is down and I type my domain password in incorrectly, I'm shitouttaluck as I need to pass the MFA to use our password reset facilities at work. Likewise I can't book flights, claim expenses, access Onedrive, my own Payslips, just to name a few of the many things that Microsoft's MFA Authentication has been baked into our system.
What if you lock yourself out of your own PC from a Microsoft account? Sounds bizarre but remember this is precisely the option that Windows 10 forced down user's throats by linking Microsoft and Physical accounts. You may know better, but my dad is dependent on going to that breakfast restaurant if he has a problem with logging into his own computer.
An elitist comment from someone who won the lottery of where a nation border was placed and profited from it. Thank you for your opinion privileged man.
Cowardly closings of nuclear power plants post-Fukushima are finally hitting home?
They really aren't. The governments most cowardly about it (Germany) have shown that aside from a no-change year or two after they started closing the reactors they are able to continue to drop their CO2 emissions.
As always planning instead of kneejerking makes a lot of sense.
That said Nuclear should be part of that plan since the rest of your post is on point.
So let me get this straight - you just wrote that you support criminals. Seriously - you call my writing retarded?
No I didn't call you retarded. I said you don't know how to parse an English sentence. Something you clearly still don't know how to do since you seem to think Google is this singular take all or leave all thing.
I belive that we have taken this about as far as I care to, because you support criminals, you are a criminal.
, it would be useful to buy one of these plants with equipment that works.
No it wouldn't. The tooling required to build an electric car and normal ICE car is completely different. Remember Tesla DID buy a factory with equipment that "works" from Honda and ended up needing to throw out / sell close to 100% of that equipment. Mercedes tried the same thing very recently, attempting and failing to retool part of a factory for electric production for cheap. Now they are spending close to 800m euro to extend a factory in France and build an electic wing on it while reverting their others back to ICE. BMW have experience with the i3 and i6, enough experience that they decided their electric cars need their own factory, another $1bn being spent on that with plans to reduce production and start cuts at other factories. To build the Taycan Porsche ended up demolishing completely the production line to make space for 100% new equipment. Renault took over 2 years to modify it's production line for the Zoe at one factory and afterwards their project manager said in the future they would not attempt it and instead either build a separate facility or completely demolish a line.
The experience is there, and it's saying that the only useful part of these plants is the roof that keeps the rain out.
These Certificates are often expensive, relatively complex to setup rarely ever give any real value.
Certifications are neither complex to setup nor do they not provide value. The people who claim they don't are those who do not understand what these certificates actually certify. Hint: It wasn't about the person on the other end, it was about the computer and the computer alone. Incidentally all these certifications are now able to be had for free.
On the other hand extended validation certifications are "expensive". I use quotes because frankly paying a few thousand dollars for the privilage of securing valuable data is not "expensive" as much as it is a minimum expectation.
The original value of these Cert Authorities was so we would be sure that the site we went to was an authentic business
Nope. CAs never required you to be a registered business. They used to require a basic form of ID, but that was absolutely stupid since you the person is insanely complicated to link to the endpoint of an internet address. That is precisely why DV certificates only care about the endpoint of the connection. It is not relevant who *you* are. It is only relevant that the computer at www.bob.com is actually the correct computer at www.bob.com.
Now if you want an EV certificate then you do need to be a registered business, you also need to prove you're able to speak on behalf of that business and that process is very carefully controlled. Always has been since the inception of an EV certificate.
so you are not getting value out of these Certs
Correct computer for the address, not being MITMed, no snooping, no ISP modifying packets on the go, is a shitload more than "no value" and is also obtainable cost-free so mathematically they actually provide infinite value.
NO!!! You're part of the problem. The lock only certifies that the machine on the other end is the correct destination typed in the URL bar and that no one else is listening. It DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS certified who owns that machine.
You do need to be sure that its gmail.com and not gmale.com, part of being an adult netizen.
This however is good advice. Good advice is to not follow links. Good advice is to manually type in addresses. If you've manually typed and checked addresses AND see the lock you're in a pretty good place. Additionally good advice would be to look for EV certifications. Google doesn't have one, but if you want to log in to Bank of America's website you shouldn't be looking for a lock, you should be looking for a bright green "Bank Of America Corporation (US)" written next to the URL.
And this is what we get for browsers forcing websites to adopt HTTPS
No. This is what we get for attempting to educate people that an encrypted connection between two computers where the controling parties at either end are unknown is considered "safe".
It's not. It never was. We developed a whole new concept of EV certificates because of that gap. That doesn't make the idea to push sites to use HTTPS bad in the slightest.
I run a site that provides 100% publicly available information in a totally read-only / user agnostic manner.
It's not up to you to decide if I may be persecuted for your "read only" information. It's not up to you to declare that information you send in plain text isn't modified or intercepted on route. Thank god we forced some sense into you.
Now users have a misguided trust
Nope, users have always had a misguided trust. If you have ever told a user that they are personally secure simply because they see a lock on the browser then you have contributed to misguiding them. The padlock doesn't certify *who* you are talking two, just that no one else is listening. It never has. Browsers have other ways of identifying to whom a user is talking rather than just certifying the web server on the other end is the correct one for the attempted connection.
And there's a big reason e.g. Bank of America says "Bank of America Corporation (US)" next to the padlock, whereas your crappy little website just has a plain old lock.
I actually do get it. the EU cannot compete, they cannot create. Parasites.
You clearly don't get it, but then it's hard to describe to you your poor reading comprehension skills through a medium that requires you to read.
Using Yandex instead of Google should be the moral choice for the EU.
That is the most retarded thing I've read on Slashdot. And I browse at -1.
If you use Google, you support Google.
We do support Google. That is the thing you don't get. We all support Google. We will continue to support Google while we protect ourselves from very VERY specific illegal activities they conduct. The response to that is not to dump Google. If you think it is then you have fundamentally failed to understand my entire post.
avoiding the poison is the best way to get rid of the poison
Define the poison. The poison is not Google. The poison is not search or the various services that Google provides. The poison is that a company this entrenched uses its power to prevent competition in other areas where they are not so entrenched. It is a posion which we are actively getting rid of by enforcing the antitrust laws that are on the books not only here, but in your country too.
I would be setting up for a EU centric search engine provider. Might take a few years
You should try doing just that. Maybe you'll finally get an appreciation for what market power actually means. Certainly I have failed to make that clear to you and I've run out of ways to explain this.
I'm certain that any reply you send will have the same low-key insults about how stupid I am.
You're not stupid. I am however critiscising your ability to understand written language, economics, and.... actually reading your bit about "control" I think you may have understood what I said about politics 101 so at least that is a plus.
I'm sure it's fine, as in fine and well written. I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it given he has a long history of openly denying the research of his own government.
What I'm not sure about, but actually certain of is that he has grabbed you hard by the pussy.
Slashdot Mirror
Back when Slashdot was "News for Nerds" this story wouldn't be posted.
That's quite a declaration from someone with a UID in the 4.5million. When was "back when"? 2017? 2016?
GM, Ford and Chrysler have the plants that can produce the majority of what goes into a car: chassis, assembly line, ...etc. An electric motor is not a big deal to make.
Renault, Mercedes, BMW disagree and have just invested lots of money to NOT use existing assembly lines as they discovered that it's actually a pretty damn big deal to make an electric car, ... on and so has Tesla who also owned a full production plant from Honda.
Its due to falling sales.
It's due to a complex economic model that takes into account a wide variety of variables. Blaming a single isolated component of that is just sheer ignorance.
despite them not winning the popular vote in a semi-democratic First-Past-The-Post system.
That's interesting. I think I'm reading praise for FPTP systems. In the mean time countries who have this system often wish they didn't because there's nothing democratic about the natural stable end result of FPTP: A 2 party system.
because 77% of the country are against this bullshit
But not against it enough to take part in a tiny mob?
if we could transmute lead into gold, we would - if only for practical applications in using it.
No we wouldn't. The wonderful thing about those industrial properties is that you don't need much gold at all, and you don't need pure gold either. What you have is ultimately a component that is a small factor in the cost of whatever your end product is. You'd basically need to convert lead to gold for free in order for it to even be remotely viable.
It's fucking cold outside where I live right now and I'm paying out the nose to keep my home heated. I'd love me some free or cheap heat.
Found the Northern Hemisphere resident. How do you plan on removing the "free or cheap heat" during meteorological summer (June through August)?
Dur, convert the gold back into lead.
Of course the Music Industry matters. They have money. They may not matter for the industry, but they certainly matter for poor politicians desperate for donations.
On top of this the comment acts like you just flip a switch and produce a power efficient processor. Moving to ARM would involve a product that they aren't overly familiar with, in a platform (non-plug and play) that both companies generally don't have much experience with, and god forbid they may actually need to pay license fees without any guaranteed ROI.
TFHeadline says it nicely: "Some workloads"
This! I'm surprised here on a nerd news site that many commentators don't know that "Cloud" is more than "opening Excel in a browser and storing files".
Microsoft's MFA isn't just about accessing Microsoft's Cloud. They also form the basis of SSO solutions that can be deployed in corporate and personal infrastructure.
This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
To take my very real life into your analogy I can't. I live in a Hotel. I am at the mercy of the breakfast hours of restaurants. I actively tell people at work not to book meetings at 7am with me as a result.
Likewise MFA isn't just about accessing Word or Outlook. MFA from Microsoft can be deployed as the SSO option for an entire corporate infrastructure. If MFA is down and I type my domain password in incorrectly, I'm shitouttaluck as I need to pass the MFA to use our password reset facilities at work. Likewise I can't book flights, claim expenses, access Onedrive, my own Payslips, just to name a few of the many things that Microsoft's MFA Authentication has been baked into our system.
What if you lock yourself out of your own PC from a Microsoft account? Sounds bizarre but remember this is precisely the option that Windows 10 forced down user's throats by linking Microsoft and Physical accounts. You may know better, but my dad is dependent on going to that breakfast restaurant if he has a problem with logging into his own computer.
Cloud is just a server run by someone else.
Someone who is usually much better at running that server than most people.
Per capita is meaningless.
An elitist comment from someone who won the lottery of where a nation border was placed and profited from it. Thank you for your opinion privileged man.
Cowardly closings of nuclear power plants post-Fukushima are finally hitting home?
They really aren't. The governments most cowardly about it (Germany) have shown that aside from a no-change year or two after they started closing the reactors they are able to continue to drop their CO2 emissions.
As always planning instead of kneejerking makes a lot of sense.
That said Nuclear should be part of that plan since the rest of your post is on point.
So let me get this straight - you just wrote that you support criminals. Seriously - you call my writing retarded?
No I didn't call you retarded. I said you don't know how to parse an English sentence. Something you clearly still don't know how to do since you seem to think Google is this singular take all or leave all thing.
I belive that we have taken this about as far as I care to, because you support criminals, you are a criminal.
You're retarded.
Quite literally: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27...
You don't understand the difference between democracy and tyranny of the minority. Quite Literally.
, it would be useful to buy one of these plants with equipment that works.
No it wouldn't. The tooling required to build an electric car and normal ICE car is completely different. Remember Tesla DID buy a factory with equipment that "works" from Honda and ended up needing to throw out / sell close to 100% of that equipment. Mercedes tried the same thing very recently, attempting and failing to retool part of a factory for electric production for cheap. Now they are spending close to 800m euro to extend a factory in France and build an electic wing on it while reverting their others back to ICE. BMW have experience with the i3 and i6, enough experience that they decided their electric cars need their own factory, another $1bn being spent on that with plans to reduce production and start cuts at other factories. To build the Taycan Porsche ended up demolishing completely the production line to make space for 100% new equipment. Renault took over 2 years to modify it's production line for the Zoe at one factory and afterwards their project manager said in the future they would not attempt it and instead either build a separate facility or completely demolish a line.
The experience is there, and it's saying that the only useful part of these plants is the roof that keeps the rain out.
Don't be silly. Trump makes his cloths in Mexico. Though no doubt he's not silly enough to wear that cheap crap.
They are pretending that a real human
They are doing nothing of the sort. They are just communicating in the way someone expects to communicate on a phone.
These Certificates are often expensive, relatively complex to setup rarely ever give any real value.
Certifications are neither complex to setup nor do they not provide value. The people who claim they don't are those who do not understand what these certificates actually certify. Hint: It wasn't about the person on the other end, it was about the computer and the computer alone. Incidentally all these certifications are now able to be had for free.
On the other hand extended validation certifications are "expensive". I use quotes because frankly paying a few thousand dollars for the privilage of securing valuable data is not "expensive" as much as it is a minimum expectation.
The original value of these Cert Authorities was so we would be sure that the site we went to was an authentic business
Nope. CAs never required you to be a registered business. They used to require a basic form of ID, but that was absolutely stupid since you the person is insanely complicated to link to the endpoint of an internet address. That is precisely why DV certificates only care about the endpoint of the connection. It is not relevant who *you* are. It is only relevant that the computer at www.bob.com is actually the correct computer at www.bob.com.
Now if you want an EV certificate then you do need to be a registered business, you also need to prove you're able to speak on behalf of that business and that process is very carefully controlled. Always has been since the inception of an EV certificate.
so you are not getting value out of these Certs
Correct computer for the address, not being MITMed, no snooping, no ISP modifying packets on the go, is a shitload more than "no value" and is also obtainable cost-free so mathematically they actually provide infinite value.
NO!!! You're part of the problem. The lock only certifies that the machine on the other end is the correct destination typed in the URL bar and that no one else is listening. It DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS certified who owns that machine.
You do need to be sure that its gmail.com and not gmale.com, part of being an adult netizen.
This however is good advice. Good advice is to not follow links. Good advice is to manually type in addresses. If you've manually typed and checked addresses AND see the lock you're in a pretty good place. Additionally good advice would be to look for EV certifications. Google doesn't have one, but if you want to log in to Bank of America's website you shouldn't be looking for a lock, you should be looking for a bright green "Bank Of America Corporation (US)" written next to the URL.
And this is what we get for browsers forcing websites to adopt HTTPS
No. This is what we get for attempting to educate people that an encrypted connection between two computers where the controling parties at either end are unknown is considered "safe".
It's not. It never was. We developed a whole new concept of EV certificates because of that gap. That doesn't make the idea to push sites to use HTTPS bad in the slightest.
I run a site that provides 100% publicly available information in a totally read-only / user agnostic manner.
It's not up to you to decide if I may be persecuted for your "read only" information. It's not up to you to declare that information you send in plain text isn't modified or intercepted on route. Thank god we forced some sense into you.
Now users have a misguided trust
Nope, users have always had a misguided trust. If you have ever told a user that they are personally secure simply because they see a lock on the browser then you have contributed to misguiding them. The padlock doesn't certify *who* you are talking two, just that no one else is listening. It never has. Browsers have other ways of identifying to whom a user is talking rather than just certifying the web server on the other end is the correct one for the attempted connection.
And there's a big reason e.g. Bank of America says "Bank of America Corporation (US)" next to the padlock, whereas your crappy little website just has a plain old lock.
I actually do get it. the EU cannot compete, they cannot create. Parasites.
You clearly don't get it, but then it's hard to describe to you your poor reading comprehension skills through a medium that requires you to read.
Using Yandex instead of Google should be the moral choice for the EU.
That is the most retarded thing I've read on Slashdot. And I browse at -1.
If you use Google, you support Google.
We do support Google. That is the thing you don't get. We all support Google. We will continue to support Google while we protect ourselves from very VERY specific illegal activities they conduct. The response to that is not to dump Google. If you think it is then you have fundamentally failed to understand my entire post.
avoiding the poison is the best way to get rid of the poison
Define the poison. The poison is not Google. The poison is not search or the various services that Google provides. The poison is that a company this entrenched uses its power to prevent competition in other areas where they are not so entrenched. It is a posion which we are actively getting rid of by enforcing the antitrust laws that are on the books not only here, but in your country too.
I would be setting up for a EU centric search engine provider. Might take a few years
You should try doing just that. Maybe you'll finally get an appreciation for what market power actually means. Certainly I have failed to make that clear to you and I've run out of ways to explain this.
I'm certain that any reply you send will have the same low-key insults about how stupid I am.
You're not stupid. I am however critiscising your ability to understand written language, economics, and .... actually reading your bit about "control" I think you may have understood what I said about politics 101 so at least that is a plus.
I'm sure it's fine, as in fine and well written.
I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it given he has a long history of openly denying the research of his own government.
What I'm not sure about, but actually certain of is that he has grabbed you hard by the pussy.