Seriously... FB is bad medicine. That might be a controversial point because after all it is popular with a lot of clueless people. But FB is one of the worst offenders as regards datamining in the WORLD. So if you put your photos on face book... you deserve what you get.
In the event that you have to pay, you do not need the payment information to match the account information. For example, if some child sets up an account on one of these systems his parents will ultimately pay for it through their credit card etc. Thus the payment information does not match the account name.
So you say, "yes, my name is Bruce wayne... And this is the payment method"... there is no need for them to match.
I've seen gmail doing that... but I'm not sure that gets you to a name. And regardless, you can claim you don't have a cell phone. It tends to be an optional step.
Few social networking sites... almost none... are really able to figure out your real name. They might ask you to give a "real name"... and you can do that... but it doesn't have to be your real name.
You can be Bruce Wayne... Or George Washington... or whatever. How are they going to stop it? Pull a credit card off you? Who is paying for social networking? Exactly.
There are a lot of data bases with a lot of information on everyone. But how much of that information is actually accurate? The dirty little secret is that most of the information in those databases is garbage.
Which is good for us. Keep filling it with garbage. When the data miners open wide, stuff their mouths with trash and keep shoveling until they're full. They'll believe they have some means to filter fact from fiction but they're welcome to try.
This is the price of an automated system. Computers as we all know are stupid. Very easy to lie to them. And are we under any legal obligation to not lie to these people? No we are not. And even if we were, and I'd love to see a lawyer try to get a jury to convict someone of such a thing, then would it be worth the effort even to set an example? Not really.
If I poured my time and energy into developing something with the expectation of that supporting my ability to live... and you steal that from me without compensation... Why would I not use any legally available method to f' your day up?
Look, if the code is open source or whatever then fine. USE IT. The authors were good with it. But if you're taking code that was NOT offered that way, then you're a thief. And I'm going to respond to that the same way I would someone shop lifting or robbing houses. Its immoral, anti social, and undermines the whole nature of our economy.
No one is going to trust these companies until they make it clear that they're standing up to the NSA and various governments around the world that want our data.
Till then... no trust. And this stuff really just puts a spike in the eye for the whole cloud notion.
If the centralized systems are not to be trusted then we'll just use centralized systems. Which means the walled garden is unacceptable.
The kids that mowed down their class mates wouldn't have been A-OKAY upright citizens had they simply been prevented from pretending to shoot people in very childish and innocent little games.
That isn't and has never been the root of this issue.
What offends me the most about these sorts of rules is their stupidity. We are being dictated to here by lowbrow lackwits that sadly have the power of the state to compel us to obey their latest stupid thought.
The issue is not kids playing silly little games. The issue is that a certain segment of the human population is stark raving loony. Just as some are stupid or some are going to die at age 5 from a brain tumor... some are just mentally broken. There's nothing you can do about it besides find them and watch them for violent tendencies. And not goofy little games but vicious, cruel, and sadistic acts. You see that, you isolate them. If you can come up with a way to cure that sort of thing... fine. But in the meantime... watch and isolate. Because plan B in the old days was just killing them. Which sounds cruel until you remember that left to their own devices they tend to put axes through people's heads for no reason.
So... long story short. This stupid game has nothing to do with the school shootings. Stop messing with kids over this stupid crap unless your intention is to declare your own stupidity.
Why is why privatization is in most cases unrealistic.
I would like to privatize it because I think the private sector can do this job just as well or better. BUT... I am not willing to set it loose only to be responsible for putting it back together later when it fails. So it has to be either private or public. Right now its pretending to be both which is just silly. Its a public entity that takes its orders from congress. The private image isn't real.
Look, I'd love to privatize it. But no one is willing to cut the umbilical. So I'm not going to pretend like its anything but a federal agency until that time.
When the american people are ready to let hte post office go bankrupt, we are ready to let it go private.
If you are not prepared for it to go bankrupt then you are not ready for it to go private. End of story.
US postal service was "sorta" privatized but it isn't really. And it causes issues. For example, the postal service needs to ask congress permission to raise the cost of stamps. That's silly. If they're a business then they should be able to follow that where they will. Including bankruptcy.
If you're not willing to let the organziation die if it fails then it can't be privatized.
If your company doesn't innovate or do anything game changing... If they don't even do anything especially well but their job is to do something very consistently, then they might not need the rock stars.
I'm not being insulting here. There are companies like that. A good example might be a power utility. They typically aren't doing anything innovative. They buy power plants from companies that make them... possibly they install and maintain them entirely themselves. But they don't have to do anything innovative. Just follow the instructions and do the regular maintenance. That sort of business can survive pretty much indefinitely so long as they provide a high quality of service through rigorous reliability.
The rockstars are selling their ability to come up with things others won't. To come up with great ideas and then implement them in new ways.
Lets say you don't have that. Well, do you have something else? It might not be worth as much but it is probably very important in other situations. In the above example, I talked about reliability.
Another thing that is important sometimes is a near autistic attention to detail. Some jobs require EXCEPTIONALLY anal attention to detail. You'll find this in many scientific, financial, engineering, and of course computing fields. Situations where the details are everything and there are a LOT of details.
So long story short, I don't think rockstar developers are always required. That said, it is nice to have at least one around or one you hire on contract. The reason is that some times you need to change the way you do things and the rockstars are going to be better at that then the people that mastered the old way.
In any case, best of luck to you. As much as the various trolls here will beat you up for your question, the reality is that pretty much none of them could qualify for the rockstar position themselves. That's the case for most of us. I'm not a rockstar either.
I'm good at what I do. But I win more through being extremely cautious, very patient, and pathologically non-conventional. When I do things differently, it isn't because I'm innovating or trail blazing. I do things differently because I deal with security a lot. And the systems that get hacked are the systems that the hacker understands.
My systems are inscrutable to anyone that hasn't been briefed BY ME on them. Which means my systems have never successfully been hacked. Ever.
Now is that because my systems are unhackable? Or because I'm so amazing? None of the above. I'm worse at a lot of this stuff then other guys that have been hacked over and over again.
No. My systems are unhacked because the hackers literally don't understand them well enough to hack them. They're weird. They're weird on purpose. I do things in a odd way and don't publish how they work. My systems are obscure and strange. I do get lots of people TRYING to hack my systems. I can see the logs and you can tell the difference. But their automated attacks either fail or their manual attacks are given up on. Why put in the effort to hack some weird system when there are a dozen others that you can break into right now? And so they leave me alone and hack someone else.
I take my ques on defense from nature. Nearly all creatures make use of disguise, misdirection, or obfuscation to hide themselves. That is what I rely upon.
That isn't genius or a sign of my rockstar nature... because I'm not one. It is a product of my inherent paranoia and methodical approach to security.
I like to think I'm not smarter then other people... I'm wiser then them. Who can say.
If you're not a rock star, find something else you're good at doing that they cannot or will not do... and do that instead.
Remember what old darwin said. Survival of the fittest doesn't go to the strongest or the fastest or even the smartest. It goes to the most adaptable. The lowly cockroach in the scheme of things is a better specimen then the mighty lion.
Its just that in addition to all of that, the school boards and teacher's unions are out of control.
What's more, while I recognize the demographic issues, I also believe they're insolvable. There is nothing to do about it or nothing that can be done. So I'm not going to waste my time with it. Its a "vote with your feet" situation. When a community starts to rot like that, you just move away from it. That's what everyone does. Look at Detroit. You want to fix it or leave? Millions already made that choice. They gave up on the city and walked.
Now, there are cities where the communities haven't rotted but due to the NATIONAL political alliances between these unions and politicians it actually ties the hands of local people to fix problems because suddenly they start getting all this state and federal pressure to back off.
That needs to stop. Locals need to have control over their schools. They go to them and no one cares about their schools but them. Do you think a politician in Washington really cares about some school 1000 miles away? No. He's a human being and human beings don't work that way. He might be intellectually aware of it. But it doesn't effect him so he doesn't care. The locals do care because they have to deal with it. NO ONE has more of a right to influence those schools then the people that actually have to go to them.
Exposing the schools to the democratic process with parents getting one vote in the school for every child they contribute to it might actually be an interesting idea.
Regardless, my point here is that we have a lot of different problems. I see the demographic thing... I choose not to deal with it because the only way to fix it is to change people and I don't know how to do that.
In regards to Tesla breaking even or even losing money on the dealerships...
1. If they're breaking even they're still going to be less efficient then the established dealerships given that they sell OTHER cars and have much higher volume. Tesla will sell relatively few cars per dealership compared to a traditional car dealership and will do nothing but sell those cars.
The point is that the traditional dealerships will have lower over head on a per sale basis. As a result, the amount of money a traditional dealership could make will be higher then you'd think.
2. If tesla is willing to lose money on the deal then discount the cars. The dealership will eat whatever tesla is willing to give them and tesla can set the final sale price of the car at whatever they want.
As to telsa, profits, and middle men... I really think you're assuming tesla's dealerships are more efficient when they're actually not. They have very low volume comparatively which does a lot to increase per sale costs.
As to tesla making affordable cars, they're actually amongst the least affordable cars on the market. They are in no way targeted at bargain buyers. They are luxury electric cars for people that are willing to spend between 50 to 70 thousand dollars on a car that is still less practical then any gas alternative... which means they're likely being bought as commuters or second cars.
As to government regulation, I really think all regulation should expire automatically after a certain amount of time. Lets say 100 years. I am not talking about constitutional amendments or core legal principles. But the nitty gritty regulations should all expire after X years. 100 seems to be generous but for the sake of argument it is the longest duration acceptable.
If you want to sustain a bit of regulation, then put it into a new bill and pass it all over again.
The Raisin reserve would not get renewed and neither would a lot of other programs if they automatically expired if not intentionally renewed by act of congress.
That's the solution. Its that or we drowned in red tape as a society. Imagine how much of this crap we'll have on our legal books in another 100 years. Its already absurd. By that point, we'll need artificial intelligence just to read the bills.
Right, because the reason schools fail is because we don't have sufficiently generous welfare programs.
Never mind that there is negative correlation between welfare and pretty much any positive indicator.
And that includes european countries that have VERY nice welfare where people don't need to worry about food or healthcare... but if you filter the education stats for those populations in those countries... it doesn't seem to improve anything.
I will grant you that there are demographic issues here. But if that is a big issue then we need to address these problems AS demographic issues and not as economic issues.
1. Tesla's dealerships do not cost "nothing"... they have to lease building space, hire employees, etc. That all costs something and its paid for through car sales. As such, there is a margin in the cost of the car that goes RIGHT NOW to tesla dealerships. So you could afford to pay the middle man something without increasing the cost of the car or reducing Tesla's profit margin.
2. There are many different types of contracts. The dealers could buy the cars from Tesla and then resell them at whatever cost they want. Or the cars could be taken in on commission. The dealer would pay NOTHING for the cars upfront but would take a percentage of the sale value of the car. Tesla could specify a fixed sale price if they really cared about that.
3. This has very little do with money and a great deal more to do with market control and brand image. Tesla is a hyper premium car company and they don't want dealers representing their brand. They want to represent their brand and no one else. THAT is why they want to sell the cars themselves. AND AGAIN, I have no problem with that. They have every right in my opinion to represent their cars anyway they like.
My ONLY point here is that if they wanted to sell their cars they could do so just like everyone else. They don't want to do it that way. Which AGAIN, I sympathize with... but don't tell me they can't sell the cars. They can. They just cant' open their own dealerships. Which is stupid. But that's stupid regulations on businesses and industries for you.
Think that's dumb? Did you know we have a national Raisin reserve? Yep. Every year, raisin producers by law must give up a percentage of their crop to the federal government for the raisin reserve. The percentage is entirely arbitrary and is set by some faceless government department no one cares about. I think a few times the percentage was 30 percent.
Think about that. Imagine giving up 30 percent of your crop... and then paying income tax. For the raisin reserve.
Point is there are a lot of really really stupid laws and most of them came out of the great depression or immediately there after. There was a lot of economic experimentalism that went on after that and much of it was just idiotic. Since, a good deal of that legislation has been mercifully shitcanned. But there is always floaters bobbing to the surface now and again.
If Tesla opens their own dealership it will also add cost.
How else will Tesla pay for the lease on the building? How else will Tesla pay for the wages of the sales people there? Etc. All of that is added to the cost of the cars.
As to the dealers in Texas, offer them distributor contracts on condition that they sell the cars for the exact same price that Tesla sells them at their dealerships.
Some of the Texas dealers will take up that offer. There is a profit margin for the dealers in there. It might not be big but it is probably in there.
Again, I agree the law is dumb. But its not just dumb for Tesla. Its dumb for all the car companies to be forced to follow this rule. And it applies to other industries as well. Why shouldn't movie studios be allowed to run their own theaters? Etc.
Vertical monopolies so long as they're not state sponsored are fine. That is, if I own an Iron mine, I should be able to own a steal mill as well, that ships the steal to a car factory which I also own, that then ships the cars to a dealership that I own as well.
Vertical monopolies should not be banned. Horizontal monopolies are problematic sometimes especially if they're state sponsored such as we have with the telecommunications companies. But vertical monopolies are just a different way to doing business.
Its posts like this that make me feel like I belong to this species.
So many comments are either so stupid or so humorless that I can't even begin to relate to the minds that craft them. In any case, both witty and cathartic. Thank you.
Personally, I don't mind direct marketing so long as they don't literally shut out other operators. That is... sell them through your own dealership if you want but always offer your cars/products to third party dealers.
So long as they do that and don't actively try to shut people out of business... I'm fine with them doing direct to consumer sales.
My comment was more on the line of the "inappropriate touching" type of teacher. The kind that doesn't send you to prison but really should disqualify you from being a trusted authority figure to children.
Lets say you catch a teacher fondling a student. Can you prove anything in a court of law? Probably not. Could you be making it all up? Possibly.
Should the standard of evidence required to dismiss a teacher be equal the standard to send them to jail?
No.
Do something your employer finds objectionable at most businesses and you'll be fired. No court trial. No lawyers. Today. Goodbye.
Teachers especially in public education are frequently very hard to fire without as you point out... literally sending them to jail.
That's fine if you have that option. Many kids don't.
Here is the central issue that I really feel is being ignored. Bad schools persist with bad teachers and bad administrations for many years and nothing is done about it.
We all know this... and its most common in decaying communities that really don't need that additional kick to the groin. Doubtless, the bad schools are symptomatic in many cases of the decaying community.
That said, if you let parents vote with their feet as regards which school their children attend, then it should encourage bad schools to reform or die.
Look, this is elemental. Its a law of life itself, a law of business, and it really should be a law for government institutions.
Here it goes:
"Adapt or die"
Every system needs to operate on that basis. From the military, to the Postal service, to the internal revenue service, to forestry management, to the transport department, etc. All of it needs to adapt constantly in relation to empirical standards. That last point is very important. The standards cannot be arbitrary.
In some cases this might be impossible. If so, fine. Do the best you can. But in most cases it should be possible to come up with an empirical standard that is appropriate for that department.
Slashdot Mirror
Why upload pictures onto such a site?
Seriously... FB is bad medicine. That might be a controversial point because after all it is popular with a lot of clueless people. But FB is one of the worst offenders as regards datamining in the WORLD. So if you put your photos on face book... you deserve what you get.
Your friend didn't handle it correctly.
In the event that you have to pay, you do not need the payment information to match the account information. For example, if some child sets up an account on one of these systems his parents will ultimately pay for it through their credit card etc. Thus the payment information does not match the account name.
So you say, "yes, my name is Bruce wayne... And this is the payment method"... there is no need for them to match.
I've seen gmail doing that... but I'm not sure that gets you to a name. And regardless, you can claim you don't have a cell phone. It tends to be an optional step.
Few social networking sites... almost none... are really able to figure out your real name. They might ask you to give a "real name"... and you can do that... but it doesn't have to be your real name.
You can be Bruce Wayne... Or George Washington... or whatever. How are they going to stop it? Pull a credit card off you? Who is paying for social networking? Exactly.
There are a lot of data bases with a lot of information on everyone. But how much of that information is actually accurate? The dirty little secret is that most of the information in those databases is garbage.
Which is good for us. Keep filling it with garbage. When the data miners open wide, stuff their mouths with trash and keep shoveling until they're full. They'll believe they have some means to filter fact from fiction but they're welcome to try.
This is the price of an automated system. Computers as we all know are stupid. Very easy to lie to them. And are we under any legal obligation to not lie to these people? No we are not. And even if we were, and I'd love to see a lawyer try to get a jury to convict someone of such a thing, then would it be worth the effort even to set an example? Not really.
Lie and keep lying.
If I poured my time and energy into developing something with the expectation of that supporting my ability to live... and you steal that from me without compensation... Why would I not use any legally available method to f' your day up?
Look, if the code is open source or whatever then fine. USE IT. The authors were good with it. But if you're taking code that was NOT offered that way, then you're a thief. And I'm going to respond to that the same way I would someone shop lifting or robbing houses. Its immoral, anti social, and undermines the whole nature of our economy.
No one is going to trust these companies until they make it clear that they're standing up to the NSA and various governments around the world that want our data.
Till then... no trust. And this stuff really just puts a spike in the eye for the whole cloud notion.
If the centralized systems are not to be trusted then we'll just use centralized systems. Which means the walled garden is unacceptable.
its never happened before.
There is no evidence to link one behavior with another.
End of any rational discussion on the issue.
If you want to have an IRRATIONAL discussion on the issue, then I counter with "poptard * unicorn = rainbow"
Which is about as sensible as things get if there is no interest in little things like evidence, logic, etc.
I'm sure it is... and its the product ignorant minds because that sort of behavior is not what caused students to get gunned down with REAL weapons.
There is no correlation OR causation between that behavior and actual violence.
Absent any link, why would you ban it? You can find a reason but it won't be substantive.
The kids that mowed down their class mates wouldn't have been A-OKAY upright citizens had they simply been prevented from pretending to shoot people in very childish and innocent little games.
That isn't and has never been the root of this issue.
What offends me the most about these sorts of rules is their stupidity. We are being dictated to here by lowbrow lackwits that sadly have the power of the state to compel us to obey their latest stupid thought.
The issue is not kids playing silly little games. The issue is that a certain segment of the human population is stark raving loony. Just as some are stupid or some are going to die at age 5 from a brain tumor... some are just mentally broken. There's nothing you can do about it besides find them and watch them for violent tendencies. And not goofy little games but vicious, cruel, and sadistic acts. You see that, you isolate them. If you can come up with a way to cure that sort of thing... fine. But in the meantime... watch and isolate. Because plan B in the old days was just killing them. Which sounds cruel until you remember that left to their own devices they tend to put axes through people's heads for no reason.
So... long story short. This stupid game has nothing to do with the school shootings. Stop messing with kids over this stupid crap unless your intention is to declare your own stupidity.
Turn on a Romba near a cat... they're either attack it or ignore it with imperious contempt.
It has always worked.
Not as the only line of security. This is not a substitute for encryption etc. But you do it as well on top of that.
They do not find or understand your system and even if they do it has the other types of security as well.
So yes. In 2013 and always.
This is the sort of security that works against state backed cyber intrusions.
Why is why privatization is in most cases unrealistic.
I would like to privatize it because I think the private sector can do this job just as well or better. BUT... I am not willing to set it loose only to be responsible for putting it back together later when it fails. So it has to be either private or public. Right now its pretending to be both which is just silly. Its a public entity that takes its orders from congress. The private image isn't real.
Look, I'd love to privatize it. But no one is willing to cut the umbilical. So I'm not going to pretend like its anything but a federal agency until that time.
When the american people are ready to let hte post office go bankrupt, we are ready to let it go private.
If you are not prepared for it to go bankrupt then you are not ready for it to go private. End of story.
US postal service was "sorta" privatized but it isn't really. And it causes issues. For example, the postal service needs to ask congress permission to raise the cost of stamps. That's silly. If they're a business then they should be able to follow that where they will. Including bankruptcy.
If you're not willing to let the organziation die if it fails then it can't be privatized.
If your company doesn't innovate or do anything game changing... If they don't even do anything especially well but their job is to do something very consistently, then they might not need the rock stars.
I'm not being insulting here. There are companies like that. A good example might be a power utility. They typically aren't doing anything innovative. They buy power plants from companies that make them... possibly they install and maintain them entirely themselves. But they don't have to do anything innovative. Just follow the instructions and do the regular maintenance. That sort of business can survive pretty much indefinitely so long as they provide a high quality of service through rigorous reliability.
The rockstars are selling their ability to come up with things others won't. To come up with great ideas and then implement them in new ways.
Lets say you don't have that. Well, do you have something else? It might not be worth as much but it is probably very important in other situations. In the above example, I talked about reliability.
Another thing that is important sometimes is a near autistic attention to detail. Some jobs require EXCEPTIONALLY anal attention to detail. You'll find this in many scientific, financial, engineering, and of course computing fields. Situations where the details are everything and there are a LOT of details.
So long story short, I don't think rockstar developers are always required. That said, it is nice to have at least one around or one you hire on contract. The reason is that some times you need to change the way you do things and the rockstars are going to be better at that then the people that mastered the old way.
In any case, best of luck to you. As much as the various trolls here will beat you up for your question, the reality is that pretty much none of them could qualify for the rockstar position themselves. That's the case for most of us. I'm not a rockstar either.
I'm good at what I do. But I win more through being extremely cautious, very patient, and pathologically non-conventional. When I do things differently, it isn't because I'm innovating or trail blazing. I do things differently because I deal with security a lot. And the systems that get hacked are the systems that the hacker understands.
My systems are inscrutable to anyone that hasn't been briefed BY ME on them. Which means my systems have never successfully been hacked. Ever.
Now is that because my systems are unhackable? Or because I'm so amazing? None of the above. I'm worse at a lot of this stuff then other guys that have been hacked over and over again.
No. My systems are unhacked because the hackers literally don't understand them well enough to hack them. They're weird. They're weird on purpose. I do things in a odd way and don't publish how they work. My systems are obscure and strange. I do get lots of people TRYING to hack my systems. I can see the logs and you can tell the difference. But their automated attacks either fail or their manual attacks are given up on. Why put in the effort to hack some weird system when there are a dozen others that you can break into right now? And so they leave me alone and hack someone else.
I take my ques on defense from nature. Nearly all creatures make use of disguise, misdirection, or obfuscation to hide themselves. That is what I rely upon.
That isn't genius or a sign of my rockstar nature... because I'm not one. It is a product of my inherent paranoia and methodical approach to security.
I like to think I'm not smarter then other people... I'm wiser then them. Who can say.
If you're not a rock star, find something else you're good at doing that they cannot or will not do... and do that instead.
Remember what old darwin said. Survival of the fittest doesn't go to the strongest or the fastest or even the smartest. It goes to the most adaptable. The lowly cockroach in the scheme of things is a better specimen then the mighty lion.
I don't need to walk around with ins
I do get it.
Its just that in addition to all of that, the school boards and teacher's unions are out of control.
What's more, while I recognize the demographic issues, I also believe they're insolvable. There is nothing to do about it or nothing that can be done. So I'm not going to waste my time with it. Its a "vote with your feet" situation. When a community starts to rot like that, you just move away from it. That's what everyone does. Look at Detroit. You want to fix it or leave? Millions already made that choice. They gave up on the city and walked.
Now, there are cities where the communities haven't rotted but due to the NATIONAL political alliances between these unions and politicians it actually ties the hands of local people to fix problems because suddenly they start getting all this state and federal pressure to back off.
That needs to stop. Locals need to have control over their schools. They go to them and no one cares about their schools but them. Do you think a politician in Washington really cares about some school 1000 miles away? No. He's a human being and human beings don't work that way. He might be intellectually aware of it. But it doesn't effect him so he doesn't care. The locals do care because they have to deal with it. NO ONE has more of a right to influence those schools then the people that actually have to go to them.
Exposing the schools to the democratic process with parents getting one vote in the school for every child they contribute to it might actually be an interesting idea.
Regardless, my point here is that we have a lot of different problems. I see the demographic thing... I choose not to deal with it because the only way to fix it is to change people and I don't know how to do that.
In regards to Tesla breaking even or even losing money on the dealerships...
1. If they're breaking even they're still going to be less efficient then the established dealerships given that they sell OTHER cars and have much higher volume. Tesla will sell relatively few cars per dealership compared to a traditional car dealership and will do nothing but sell those cars.
The point is that the traditional dealerships will have lower over head on a per sale basis. As a result, the amount of money a traditional dealership could make will be higher then you'd think.
2. If tesla is willing to lose money on the deal then discount the cars. The dealership will eat whatever tesla is willing to give them and tesla can set the final sale price of the car at whatever they want.
As to telsa, profits, and middle men... I really think you're assuming tesla's dealerships are more efficient when they're actually not. They have very low volume comparatively which does a lot to increase per sale costs.
As to tesla making affordable cars, they're actually amongst the least affordable cars on the market. They are in no way targeted at bargain buyers. They are luxury electric cars for people that are willing to spend between 50 to 70 thousand dollars on a car that is still less practical then any gas alternative... which means they're likely being bought as commuters or second cars.
As to government regulation, I really think all regulation should expire automatically after a certain amount of time. Lets say 100 years. I am not talking about constitutional amendments or core legal principles. But the nitty gritty regulations should all expire after X years. 100 seems to be generous but for the sake of argument it is the longest duration acceptable.
If you want to sustain a bit of regulation, then put it into a new bill and pass it all over again.
The Raisin reserve would not get renewed and neither would a lot of other programs if they automatically expired if not intentionally renewed by act of congress.
That's the solution. Its that or we drowned in red tape as a society. Imagine how much of this crap we'll have on our legal books in another 100 years. Its already absurd. By that point, we'll need artificial intelligence just to read the bills.
You get the point.
It is dumb that Apple can open a store to direct market their phones but Tesla can't do the exact same thing with a car.
The laws are dumb.
Right, because the reason schools fail is because we don't have sufficiently generous welfare programs.
Never mind that there is negative correlation between welfare and pretty much any positive indicator.
And that includes european countries that have VERY nice welfare where people don't need to worry about food or healthcare... but if you filter the education stats for those populations in those countries... it doesn't seem to improve anything.
I will grant you that there are demographic issues here. But if that is a big issue then we need to address these problems AS demographic issues and not as economic issues.
Hmmm... Depends on how you arrange the contracts.
1. Tesla's dealerships do not cost "nothing"... they have to lease building space, hire employees, etc. That all costs something and its paid for through car sales. As such, there is a margin in the cost of the car that goes RIGHT NOW to tesla dealerships. So you could afford to pay the middle man something without increasing the cost of the car or reducing Tesla's profit margin.
2. There are many different types of contracts. The dealers could buy the cars from Tesla and then resell them at whatever cost they want. Or the cars could be taken in on commission. The dealer would pay NOTHING for the cars upfront but would take a percentage of the sale value of the car. Tesla could specify a fixed sale price if they really cared about that.
3. This has very little do with money and a great deal more to do with market control and brand image. Tesla is a hyper premium car company and they don't want dealers representing their brand. They want to represent their brand and no one else. THAT is why they want to sell the cars themselves. AND AGAIN, I have no problem with that. They have every right in my opinion to represent their cars anyway they like.
My ONLY point here is that if they wanted to sell their cars they could do so just like everyone else. They don't want to do it that way. Which AGAIN, I sympathize with... but don't tell me they can't sell the cars. They can. They just cant' open their own dealerships. Which is stupid. But that's stupid regulations on businesses and industries for you.
Think that's dumb? Did you know we have a national Raisin reserve? Yep. Every year, raisin producers by law must give up a percentage of their crop to the federal government for the raisin reserve. The percentage is entirely arbitrary and is set by some faceless government department no one cares about. I think a few times the percentage was 30 percent.
Think about that. Imagine giving up 30 percent of your crop... and then paying income tax. For the raisin reserve.
Point is there are a lot of really really stupid laws and most of them came out of the great depression or immediately there after. There was a lot of economic experimentalism that went on after that and much of it was just idiotic. Since, a good deal of that legislation has been mercifully shitcanned. But there is always floaters bobbing to the surface now and again.
If Tesla opens their own dealership it will also add cost.
How else will Tesla pay for the lease on the building? How else will Tesla pay for the wages of the sales people there? Etc. All of that is added to the cost of the cars.
As to the dealers in Texas, offer them distributor contracts on condition that they sell the cars for the exact same price that Tesla sells them at their dealerships.
Some of the Texas dealers will take up that offer. There is a profit margin for the dealers in there. It might not be big but it is probably in there.
Again, I agree the law is dumb. But its not just dumb for Tesla. Its dumb for all the car companies to be forced to follow this rule. And it applies to other industries as well. Why shouldn't movie studios be allowed to run their own theaters? Etc.
Vertical monopolies so long as they're not state sponsored are fine. That is, if I own an Iron mine, I should be able to own a steal mill as well, that ships the steal to a car factory which I also own, that then ships the cars to a dealership that I own as well.
Vertical monopolies should not be banned. Horizontal monopolies are problematic sometimes especially if they're state sponsored such as we have with the telecommunications companies. But vertical monopolies are just a different way to doing business.
Its posts like this that make me feel like I belong to this species.
So many comments are either so stupid or so humorless that I can't even begin to relate to the minds that craft them. In any case, both witty and cathartic. Thank you.
Yep... we're saying the same thing.
Personally, I don't mind direct marketing so long as they don't literally shut out other operators. That is... sell them through your own dealership if you want but always offer your cars/products to third party dealers.
So long as they do that and don't actively try to shut people out of business... I'm fine with them doing direct to consumer sales.
My comment was more on the line of the "inappropriate touching" type of teacher. The kind that doesn't send you to prison but really should disqualify you from being a trusted authority figure to children.
Lets say you catch a teacher fondling a student. Can you prove anything in a court of law? Probably not. Could you be making it all up? Possibly.
Should the standard of evidence required to dismiss a teacher be equal the standard to send them to jail?
No.
Do something your employer finds objectionable at most businesses and you'll be fired. No court trial. No lawyers. Today. Goodbye.
Teachers especially in public education are frequently very hard to fire without as you point out... literally sending them to jail.
That's fine if you have that option. Many kids don't.
Here is the central issue that I really feel is being ignored. Bad schools persist with bad teachers and bad administrations for many years and nothing is done about it.
We all know this... and its most common in decaying communities that really don't need that additional kick to the groin. Doubtless, the bad schools are symptomatic in many cases of the decaying community.
That said, if you let parents vote with their feet as regards which school their children attend, then it should encourage bad schools to reform or die.
Look, this is elemental. Its a law of life itself, a law of business, and it really should be a law for government institutions.
Here it goes:
"Adapt or die"
Every system needs to operate on that basis. From the military, to the Postal service, to the internal revenue service, to forestry management, to the transport department, etc. All of it needs to adapt constantly in relation to empirical standards. That last point is very important. The standards cannot be arbitrary.
In some cases this might be impossible. If so, fine. Do the best you can. But in most cases it should be possible to come up with an empirical standard that is appropriate for that department.