based on the percentage of the population that is retired--or else it is meaningless. Guess what, baby boomers are retiring in mass numbers and thus they are counted as "unemployed" by your stupid metric. I guess the existence of baby boomers and the incontrovertible march of time are both "Obama's fault"?
The problem is that you are worse than stupid--you're a stupid person that hunts around looking for some kind of numbers to justify your stupidity--and then you don't understand those numbers because you are, in fact, really pretty fucking stupid.
It's the same measurement we've been using for decades and you can compare it to equivalent numbers in other countries.
You can certainly look at other labor metrics (like labor participation rate) but then you need to compare apples to apples with that same metric for other countries and other points in US history.
But you don't want to do that. Because you're a fucking moron.
...that I've ever seen on Slashdot. And I clearly remember "No wifi, less space than a Nomad, lame".
I will meet you back here in 4 years and then stalk you through every thread reminding you of this prediction. This god awful, hilariously stupid fucking prediction.
Tesla sold more that 50K Model S's last year--and that's a car with an ASP north of $85K. This year they are selling more than 80K Model S's + Model X's (the ASP on Model X's is even higher). And you think they won't manage 50K of a car that starts at $35K? You sir, are an idiot.
Not like an everyday "noone is going to buy iPads" kind of idiot, but like a platinum-level "noone is going to buy these stupid Model T Fords" kind of idiot--the kind that only comes around once every 100 years or so.
Have you looked at the CAFE standards lately? the trajectory on battery costs?
In 10 years the additional cost for a hybrid drivetrain vs. a pure-gasoline one will be $1500, which will yield an efficiency improvement of 15+ mpg. The CAFE standards for 2025 are requiring something like 55 mpg on average. Guess what's the easiest way to achieve that?
A Volt-style plug-in hybrid drivetrain covering ~50 miles per day will cost maybe $3K, many people will opt for that.
Real the legal blogs--the FBI was getting slapped around by Apple's lawyers.
The free speech argument seems silly--until you realize that prior precedent has ruled that "code" is "speech" and that the first amendment also protects you against "coerced speech"--and thus "coerced code". It seems a little silly to engineers, but that's the law.
There were a half-dozen other arguments that were all pretty strong.
It's that simple. I don't think either company is good or bad or altruistic, but fundamentally Apple has every incentive to protect user privacy because it's a differentiator for them and thus helps them to sell more hardware--which is where they make all their money. Apple sets up all of their user-facing services such that Apple themselves often don't have access to user-data. For example, Apple isn't in the loop for Apple Pay--they have no knowledge of what things you've bought with Apple Pay. Why? because they don't care, they just want you to but another iPhone someday.
Google has a more complicated relationship with user privacy because they make their money selling targeted ads, and fundamentally they want to know everything they can about their users to better target ads.
Clearly Apple & Google compete--and probably there's a bit of the undercutting that you talk about, but there's a simpler explanation if you just look at where the companies make their money.
Apple asked the FBI to file their request to the judge secretly (as generally is done in these situations), the FBI filed it publicly and then started their own PR campaign to try to put public pressure on Apple.
The FBI then realized that Apple is also pretty good an marshaling public support, and that Apple can afford better lawyers; the FBI then took a tactical retreat.
So why is the FBI still talking so publicly about cracking phones? No idea, I don't see any tactical advantage in it. I think they've just got hurt feelings and it's a form of chest-thumping.
> First, the Model 3 doesn't have autopilot for $35K. It comes with the hardware, it isn't enabled. Read closer. The only feature enabled is the emergency braking.
False. It also includes lane wander. The rest of the features will be maybe a $2K upgrade (tops), probably less.
What's the $20K car that has auto-breaking and lane wander standard?
> Second, full glass roof? Really? That feature sucks and I'll be surprised if it makes it to the final car.
Well, as we've already established, you're an idiot.
> As for "people just prefer electric cars", no, they clearly do not.
They clearly do. Customer satisfaction for the Model S and Chevy Volt are through the roof and people just put down 200K deposits for an electric cat that won't sell for another 1.5 years. People like not having to go to gas stations, they like the smooth ride, quiet acceleration--they like having a lower carbon footprint.
> They sold 50,000 Model S last year, they haven't sold any Model X yet.
People have received Model X's, some of those people have written about it. I've seen them driving around. Stop looking at 4 month old articles.
They've sold over 100K Model S's--that's already a successful car, especially when you consider it has an ASP north of $80K.
> Tesla has done a wonderful job of marketing, so they have that "Apple Effect",
Well now we have proof that you're an idiot--because you think people buy Apple devices because of marketing. Do you find yourself being consistently surprised that some companies become extremely successful (almost over night) and others don't? And then you just dismiss it as "marketing"? The problem is that you don't understand (a) the dynamics of either industry, or (b) why people buy things.
The Model 3 competes in the same class as a BMW 3-series which is similarly sized and has a base price of, what for it, hold on...$33,150.
There are a *lot* of cars that size that sell for a lot more--the price of a car isn't purely a function of its size. The Model 3 has features, external and internal styling, and interior entirely appropriate (arguably exceptional) for a $35K mid-size sedan. Show me one fucking $20K car that has auto-pilot, a 15" screen, full glass roof, and 0-60 of 6s; that's before we even get to the fact that people just prefer electric cars.
Nobody on the fucking planet is saying that Tesla is going to sell 10s of millions of these--Tesla wants to sell 500K of them per year, and they already have 200K deposits...in the first 48 hours. That is a lot of cars.
Considering they sold a couple thousand roadsters, they sell >60K/year of Model S's and X's, they're on a pretty good trajectory.
For a car that will cost at least $35K. That's not a rounding error, that's $7.5 Billion.
The median new car price is ~$33K; this car is accessible to half of all car buyers. This isn't 2003 anymore--the whole "EVs are expensive toys" schtick is getting pretty old.
There's no such thing as absolute security, the best we can do is raise the cost of cracking. The FBI was willing to pay that cost ($15K+), which no doubt required expensive equipment, physical access to the phone, and specialized knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
based on the percentage of the population that is retired--or else it is meaningless. Guess what, baby boomers are retiring in mass numbers and thus they are counted as "unemployed" by your stupid metric. I guess the existence of baby boomers and the incontrovertible march of time are both "Obama's fault"?
The problem is that you are worse than stupid--you're a stupid person that hunts around looking for some kind of numbers to justify your stupidity--and then you don't understand those numbers because you are, in fact, really pretty fucking stupid.
It's the same measurement we've been using for decades and you can compare it to equivalent numbers in other countries.
You can certainly look at other labor metrics (like labor participation rate) but then you need to compare apples to apples with that same metric for other countries and other points in US history.
But you don't want to do that. Because you're a fucking moron.
That is where your comment jumped the shark.
You have clearly never lived in a country where the economy really is "dead pretty much". Those countries don't have 5% unemployment.
...that I've ever seen on Slashdot. And I clearly remember "No wifi, less space than a Nomad, lame".
I will meet you back here in 4 years and then stalk you through every thread reminding you of this prediction. This god awful, hilariously stupid fucking prediction.
Tesla sold more that 50K Model S's last year--and that's a car with an ASP north of $85K. This year they are selling more than 80K Model S's + Model X's (the ASP on Model X's is even higher). And you think they won't manage 50K of a car that starts at $35K? You sir, are an idiot.
Not like an everyday "noone is going to buy iPads" kind of idiot, but like a platinum-level "noone is going to buy these stupid Model T Fords" kind of idiot--the kind that only comes around once every 100 years or so.
Your battery is not a brick in 8 years. That's fucking retarded.
Completely replacing the battery in 8 years will be cheap--it's already not that expensive.
Gas prices won't stay low forever.
Do you think Saudi Arabia should set the standards of conduct in the US?
Have you looked at the CAFE standards lately? the trajectory on battery costs?
In 10 years the additional cost for a hybrid drivetrain vs. a pure-gasoline one will be $1500, which will yield an efficiency improvement of 15+ mpg. The CAFE standards for 2025 are requiring something like 55 mpg on average. Guess what's the easiest way to achieve that?
A Volt-style plug-in hybrid drivetrain covering ~50 miles per day will cost maybe $3K, many people will opt for that.
And gas prices will go back up.
They never claimed it couldn't be broken--in fact they disputed the FBI's claim that they needed "Apple's help" to break into the iPhone.
Real the legal blogs--the FBI was getting slapped around by Apple's lawyers.
The free speech argument seems silly--until you realize that prior precedent has ruled that "code" is "speech" and that the first amendment also protects you against "coerced speech"--and thus "coerced code". It seems a little silly to engineers, but that's the law.
There were a half-dozen other arguments that were all pretty strong.
It's that simple. I don't think either company is good or bad or altruistic, but fundamentally Apple has every incentive to protect user privacy because it's a differentiator for them and thus helps them to sell more hardware--which is where they make all their money. Apple sets up all of their user-facing services such that Apple themselves often don't have access to user-data. For example, Apple isn't in the loop for Apple Pay--they have no knowledge of what things you've bought with Apple Pay. Why? because they don't care, they just want you to but another iPhone someday.
Google has a more complicated relationship with user privacy because they make their money selling targeted ads, and fundamentally they want to know everything they can about their users to better target ads.
Clearly Apple & Google compete--and probably there's a bit of the undercutting that you talk about, but there's a simpler explanation if you just look at where the companies make their money.
Apple asked the FBI to file their request to the judge secretly (as generally is done in these situations), the FBI filed it publicly and then started their own PR campaign to try to put public pressure on Apple.
The FBI then realized that Apple is also pretty good an marshaling public support, and that Apple can afford better lawyers; the FBI then took a tactical retreat.
So why is the FBI still talking so publicly about cracking phones? No idea, I don't see any tactical advantage in it. I think they've just got hurt feelings and it's a form of chest-thumping.
> First, the Model 3 doesn't have autopilot for $35K. It comes with the hardware, it isn't enabled. Read closer. The only feature enabled is the emergency braking.
False. It also includes lane wander. The rest of the features will be maybe a $2K upgrade (tops), probably less.
What's the $20K car that has auto-breaking and lane wander standard?
> Second, full glass roof? Really? That feature sucks and I'll be surprised if it makes it to the final car.
Well, as we've already established, you're an idiot.
> As for "people just prefer electric cars", no, they clearly do not.
They clearly do. Customer satisfaction for the Model S and Chevy Volt are through the roof and people just put down 200K deposits for an electric cat that won't sell for another 1.5 years. People like not having to go to gas stations, they like the smooth ride, quiet acceleration--they like having a lower carbon footprint.
> They sold 50,000 Model S last year, they haven't sold any Model X yet.
People have received Model X's, some of those people have written about it. I've seen them driving around. Stop looking at 4 month old articles.
They've sold over 100K Model S's--that's already a successful car, especially when you consider it has an ASP north of $80K.
> Tesla has done a wonderful job of marketing, so they have that "Apple Effect",
Well now we have proof that you're an idiot--because you think people buy Apple devices because of marketing. Do you find yourself being consistently surprised that some companies become extremely successful (almost over night) and others don't? And then you just dismiss it as "marketing"? The problem is that you don't understand (a) the dynamics of either industry, or (b) why people buy things.
must be nice.
In 10 years > 75% of new passenger cars in the US will have some sort of electric drive, either hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or EV.
In 20 years > 75% of new passenger cars in the US will be carbon-free.
This is what the future looks like.
The Model 3 competes in the same class as a BMW 3-series which is similarly sized and has a base price of, what for it, hold on...$33,150.
There are a *lot* of cars that size that sell for a lot more--the price of a car isn't purely a function of its size. The Model 3 has features, external and internal styling, and interior entirely appropriate (arguably exceptional) for a $35K mid-size sedan. Show me one fucking $20K car that has auto-pilot, a 15" screen, full glass roof, and 0-60 of 6s; that's before we even get to the fact that people just prefer electric cars.
Nobody on the fucking planet is saying that Tesla is going to sell 10s of millions of these--Tesla wants to sell 500K of them per year, and they already have 200K deposits...in the first 48 hours. That is a lot of cars.
Considering they sold a couple thousand roadsters, they sell >60K/year of Model S's and X's, they're on a pretty good trajectory.
There are all manner of hardware hacks. They require specialized equipment and knowledge--presumably this is how the Israeli company got in.
So I guess half of all car buyers are just too stupid to realize they could get a Ford Fusion for half that.
Seriously, dude, wtf is your problem?
For a car that will cost at least $35K. That's not a rounding error, that's $7.5 Billion.
The median new car price is ~$33K; this car is accessible to half of all car buyers. This isn't 2003 anymore--the whole "EVs are expensive toys" schtick is getting pretty old.
which you did.
There's no such thing as absolute security, the best we can do is raise the cost of cracking. The FBI was willing to pay that cost ($15K+), which no doubt required expensive equipment, physical access to the phone, and specialized knowledge.
nt
I would vomit over every square inch of that car if I tried to code while moving. Am I in the minority here?
If I ever meet the guy who decided to put TVs (that are impossible to turn off) in the back of every NYC cab I am going to vomit on him.
Anything is breakable with enough time & money. This is all about making the cost higher to break an iPhone.
Just announced.
Sent from my iPhone