Just like a regular car, the factory warranty, including the 60,000 mile battery warranty*, carried on to me. After 2 years I driving the Leaf I haven't seen a drop in capacity yet and I'm still under warranty. The batteries are designed to last much longer anyway. The fear dying batteries is overblown.
* - Batteries in the 2018 Leaf are warrantied for 100,000 miles.
What model of electric car do you drive? Can you tell us about your experiences with it?
Nissan Leaf owner... it's crazy quiet and comfortable. It's cheap not only because electric is cheaper than gas, but because there's almost no maintenance (no oil changes, no muffler, no coolant, no fuel filters, brake pads last longer, etc.) or an annual emissions test to pay for.
Performance is better than most would expect... very quick acceleration off the line. Above ~45 mph acceleration is more sluggish than ICE, but you can still get it up 80+ mph to land you a speeding ticket anywhere in the country. The range drops considerably if you're a lead foot or drive long distances at 55+ mph highway speeds. Efficiency is best as a city driver staying in the 25-50 mph range.
In over two years I have never charged my Leaf anywhere other than in my garage, so the charging station concern is overblown. However, I would not recommend an EV to anyone without a reliable place to charge at home.
My wife has an ICE and we use her car for road trips or swap cars if I need to go further than the Leaf's range, so I am not completely dependent on the Leaf's range. An EV is a great choice for a two-car household where one can be an ICE. If your household only has one car, you need to review your driving needs carefully before going EV and probably budget for the occasional rental.
If you're willing to buy a used EV (I did) there are some amazing deals because most owners lease them.
A prime location for a lunar [or martian] base would be inside a cave thick enough overhead to block dangerous radiation and recoverable ice/water inside.
Discovering lunar caves/lava tubes is not really news though... From 2016: https://www.space.com/32795-mo... These are just more caves found closer to the lunar pole and hypothesizes there MIGHT be water/ice inside.
Money-wise... If I could play on a $100 PC-stick or $200 laptop what I now need a $500 PC or $1000 laptop for, then if the subscription price is right, I could even save money in the long run.
Many people get laptops from their work (free) and use it as their personal/home computer too. If they can install this Nvidia client, they could stream games at only the cost of the Nvidia service without installing games on work laptop, which would probably be frowned upon by the employer.
Any car, EV or ICE, sitting in my driveway is filling more of my vehicle needs than a $1,000 promise note from Tesla.
So if there was a waiting list for your preferred car, a bicycle would suddenly become even better than the vehicle you're waiting on? That's delusional.
Or there are a bunch of delusional Tesla fans with more disposable income to spend on a car.... just maybe?
I drive a Model S.
Then you are clearly NOT an average example of the US population, and you are delusional if you think your personal car finances are reflective of middle america. The Model S is a fantastic car IF one is in the luxury $80K+ car market. I would love to own one, but I can't afford it and neither can most of America. Even the Model 3 price is questionable for middle class Americans if one adds anything beyond the base model.
Just for some perspective, the average new car price Americans pay is ~$33,500 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/ ). That average includes typically more expensive trucks and SUVs, so it would be less if restricted to just sedans, and ignores the massive used car market.
I could not drive a car without a fast charging network.
Sure you could, you just wouldn't be driving an $80K+ EV... you would probably drive a conventional ICE/hybrid or a cheaper EV and deal with the range. You choose the Model S option because you have the financial means. Don't presume your situation is typical.
Investors (like me, full disclosure) believe that Tesla is betting on the right horse here and that the all-or-nothing approach will give them a serious advantage over the "I want to play, too" approach of the traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla surviving/thriving long-term is only tangentially related to whether the stock is over-valued. They can survive as a company and still have a market correction on their stock price, suddenly or gradually. Stock analysts pumping up Tesla are peddling in feelings not facts, so I don't really care what they say (my main point). To be fair, much of the stock market is based on feelings and behavioral economics, but I think Tesla stock is particular glaring example of feelings taking over facts. Tesla doesn't have the physical assets to support the stock price, they don't have production capabilities to support the stock price, they don't have profits to support the stock price, there questions about whether they can obtain the raw materials of production long-term, and arguably the industry in general probably cannot support a stock price like they have currently. To that last point, the fundamental sales model is the same or at best marginally different than all other car companies.They have a good product, but it's still a car that makes most of the profit on the initial purchase and little afterwards. People act like they are tech company like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc. but the difference is those companies have myriads of potential revenue streams to exploit to support stock speculation, which are not available to Tesla selling cars. There's even some questioning if overall the car market will shrink because younger generations have less interest in owning cars.
it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3
That depends. Does the EV you can drive home right now do what you need it to do?
Any car, EV or ICE, sitting in my driveway is filling more of my vehicle needs than a $1,000 promise note from Tesla.
Without a fastcharging network the Bolt won't work for a huge percentage of the population
As someone who has owned a Nissan Leaf for two years I can confidently say that for most people you are overstating the importance of Tesla's charging station networks. I've never taken my Leaf to charging station. All of my charging has been in my garage on a standard 120V trickle charge overnight. In a pinch I could get a charge at any Nissan dealership, or a Tesla station, but I've never needed it. The mentality of "filling up" at a station disappears shortly after one gets used to having an EV. In full disclosure, my wife has an ICE and we swap cars when I need to go further than the Leaf's 80 mile range or use hers for road trips together, so the Leaf alone doesn't meet all of our household needs, but our 2-car household is pretty typical example of middle class America targeted by EV car makers.
Cool man... keep it up. A steady supply of cheap used cars is good for other people, like me, who bought a used Nissan Leaf a couple years ago at a massive discount. My Leaf runs great and meets my needs, needs that aren't changing just because a new EV with longer range comes out.
Even if I accept your statement that all other cars are "a decade behind" Tesla [which I disagree with], it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3 that you have pay $1,000 to reserve the opportunity to buy the entire car in 1-2 years (or longer). You don't seem like a total Tesla fanboy, but I think you're still making a massive excuse for them. FWIW, I have no ill will towards Tesla, I think they are doing some amazing things, I sincerely hope the company survives, and I wish I could afford a Model S, but I'll keep driving my Nissan Leaf for the foreseeable future.
A stock analyst (i.e. Munster, who is quoted in the summary) saying some Tesla action will "stoke investor optimism" means nothing... there are no concrete facts here, it's just feelings. There is no rationality to the Tesla's stock (TSLA) stock price being valued many times more than the company assets, and many times higher than the stock prices of established competing car companies, which have comparable cars to the Model 3 on the market right now (e.g. Nissan, Volkswagon, Chevy, etc.) while Tesla still struggles with production. I honestly hope Tesla survives and thrives as a company, but stock analysts aren't providing any useful information here.
The CEO's next two sentences after the one you quoted back up my point: "...I don't think we are obsessed with enforcing compliance with a one-household-per-account constraint. Because, in reality, it's a high-value programme, so that's what people are going to do."
Subscriptions can be a big mental hurdle for many consumers, even if it makes logical economic sense. However, Hollywood could also allow ticket prices to fluctuate up and down with actual market demands. Prices could go up or down based on factors like... - Special effects/sound that benefit from the theater experience vs watching at home (e.g. action vs dramas... give people a price break if they are willing to see a drama in the theaters). - Opening day/week vs later showings - Popularity of the franchise - Popularity of actors/actresses/directors - Reward/Loyalty/Discount programs
They could track ticket sales data in real time and respond dynamically to the real market to wring every penny possible from us, like companies in other fields do, but instead they stick with their ~100 year old flat price model.
I can't understand why superhero movies are so popular?... I only see art films myself.
Superhero and other action/special effects heavy movies make the best use of the theater's big screen and sound systems. Most dramas and art movies don't gain much if anything seeing them in the theater vs home, so people are spending their money accordingly. The dramas and art films are still being made, they just don't get theater ticket sales, which is the focus of the article.
Superhero movies are also simple fun and escape. Not everyone considers a fighting back tears watching a heart-wrenching drama an enjoyable way to spend their Saturday night. If you enjoy a movie night clutching a tissue box, that's fine, but others may prefer more escapism in their movies and there's nothing wrong with that.
Things haven't always been good around here, but I think they're looking bleaker than they have in a long time.... Basically what I want is a site that:
* Is focused on technology, science, mathematics, engineering, computing, programming, and relevant stuff like that. * Allows anonymous commenting, because having to create an account is fucking stupid. * Has little to no censorship, since the best discussion is free discussion where people don't fear being silenced for expressing their own opinion.......I don't think that Slashdot can be salvaged...
I agree things look bleak on Slashdot and it's probably not salvageable... I would also like an alternative, but I haven't found it yet. However related to your criteria I think Slashdot's anonymous commentary and utter lack of censorship has handed this site over trolls and extreme opinions which have driven away the field experts who used to participate on this site. Slashdot's ideological stand against censorship has allowed the trolls rule, reduced most discussion to nonsense and opened the door to more politically-slanted submissions. There is an area between censorship and enforcing rules to foster discussion/community, which Slashdot has completely failed at.
Recently used it through my partners account to see a particular group page for a recent Kickstarter I backed and was at first reconsidering joining again, but after only a short time I realised it was not a good idea.
FWIW, my father has a Facebook account that he only uses to follow a handful of Facebook groups and he has purposely not added any "friends". His hobby is bird-watching and some birding organizations he is involved with mainly use Facebook for announcements, so that's what pushed him there, but I think he has joined or liked a few other Facebook pages since. If you don't add friends to your account, then the Facebook feed is like a very customizable news aggregator.
Cool. I should have done some research myself first. I guess that information doesn't get as much attention as pretty pictures. The resolution on satellite based GPR has to be massive. The seismometer is really cool. Although I would prefer several stationary seismometers deployed long-term around the planet, but one mobile seismometer will have to do. I am very skeptical of how much planetary information can be obtained from a mere 5-meter drill, but we'll see...I'd like to be surprised. I suspect the drill will succumb to wear before the probe's other devices from Mars dirt and mechanical force driving it, so hopefully they get it to the good drilling spots early.
Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.
...They seem to have a pretty dedicated following....It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content.....
Agreed. Facebook is what you make of it. People blame Facebook instead of evaluating their own behavior and interactions that make Facebook what it is.
Human nature/psychology is more likely to react to, respond, and share inane, extreme, and negative stuff than it is to intelligent, moderate, nuanced stuff, so naturally the former floats to the top of many Facebook users "experience." This phenomenon is not unique to Facebook though... Just look at the Slashdot commentary and note how often the negative, angry, and sometimes unabashed trolling comments generate the most responses [like the original post in this very discussion]. Humanity's fundamental fascination with conflict and cat pictures won't be cured by destroying Facebook. Killing Facebook would be like cutting off the head of a hydra, where two [or more] options would arise in its place fulfill people's desire for conflict and cat pictures, whether they are aware of their desires or not.
No, he's paying for 4 streams / household. If you are going to ignore the rules, you might as well ignore all of them. At least then you are honest with yourself.
Then let's also be honest that netflix doesn't mean their service to be one physical house only...that's an old-school cable TV mindset. Netflix advertises that subscribers get multiple streams so that a family with multiple homes or family members who travel a lot can all access their Netflix account from anywhere. Netflix has tiered pricing for 1, 2, and 4 streams on a single account. They know exactly what they offering and what customers will do with those options. It's built into their business model and they can change the model whenever they want.
I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth. Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos. We have enough surficial information to say with some confidence that if there's anything really interesting going on with Mars, it's probably happening deep below ground (e.g. water, tectonics, volcanism, earthquakes, cave systems, etc.), and we don't have good tools yet to say much, if anything about Mars' underground geologic conditions. If we fund another Mars mission that just sends back more pretty pictures I'm going to be really disappointed.
Nope. I don't have a "naive fantasy" that I am "sticking it to the man," that's just your strawman argument. I have no problems at all being part of a normal market economy. I am paying Netflix for 4 streams whether I use them or someone else does. No other rationalization is needed. A streaming service is able to reduce the number of available streams to subscribers and/or put better restrictions in place on sharing as they feel it is necessary. It's no different than a software company choosing whether or not to put DRM on their software or telecoms restricting tethering, they are weighing profits vs satisfaction of customers. If Netflix changes things so my wife and I can't share as easily, then us and our respective parents will decide how we all want to spend our money, like people in a normal market economy do. Coincidentally the original article is about networks wanting to reduce number of streams to try to get more subscribers. So, a real life example of what is described in the article [and the icing on the cake is contrary to popular generational stereotypes it's the baby boomer generation parents coasting on their children.]
I'm sure all of those millennials sharing their parents' passwords will immediately sign up for cable as soon as the restrictions take effect.
It's short-sighted to say that none of them would get their own cable TV accounts. It's also possible they might sign-up for streams directly from networks like ESPN, HBO, AMC, etc., benefitting the networks and bypassing traditional cable TV.
But, it could go the other generational way too. My wife and I* have Netflix with 4 four device log-ins, but we only use 2, so we gave our respective baby-boomer parents each a device log-in. We helped our parents see the benefit of using a streaming service. If Netflix cracked down and we couldn't give our parents those device anymore, then it's very likely our parents would sign up on their own, but until then we're all happy with the arrangement.
* - We are between GenX and Millenial... both born in 1980. Make whatever assumption you want. It will not change the reality.
The thing that bothers me about the movie is the distribution deal Disney worked out with theaters. To show the film, they had to agree to keep it on screens for at least 4 weeks.
I remember going to see The Force Awakens on a Friday night a few weeks after it was released. The theater was empty...That memory stands out more than the film.
I don't know about you, but watching a movie in an empty theater feels creepy.
FWIW, I prefer watching movies in an empty theater. The more people in the theater the more likely there will be rude/annoying people around and it only takes one or two of those to ruin the experience for a lot of other viewers.
That said I don't agree or understand why Disney is forcing the 4 week minimum on theaters either. Most people aren't going to see any movie twice just because it's still in the theater, clearly, since you remember seeing The Force Awakens in an empty theater. That policy really hurts small town theaters, many of which are not showing the movie for that reason, so that can't help Disney's sales. Disney also risks cannibalising viewers from other movies in their empire (animated Disney movies, Marvel, etc.). I feel like whatever incremental sales bump they get by forcing that 4 week minimum would be off-set by those factors... but what do I know... I'm sure Disney ran all their profit maximising algorithms to support the policy...
Since we're veering off-topic anyway.... If Disney/Hollywood want to make more money in the theaters, what they should really do is throw out Hollywood's antiquated flat ticket price structure and allow prices to fluctuate up and down with real market demands (e.g. opening week vs later, action vs drama movies, more or less popular franchises or actors/actresses, discount/rewards programs, etc.).
I agree with you that we need to wait to see how successful the Switch is and they haven't really proven that yet. But, one thing you didn't mention that could give Switch an edge, is the portable/console hybrid puts it in a good position to potentially win back or retain the millions of DS users that Nintendo had amazing successes with previously. DS was broadsided by cheap mobile phone/tablet gaming. The Wii U tried and failed to win them back, and the Switch might also fail, but so far the Switch seems to have more legs than the Wii U ever did.
FWIW, I am not a Nintendo fan boy, but I don't dislike them either. I haven't bought a Nintendo product in nearly 10 years, but I hope they find their place in the market to continue to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like a regular car, the factory warranty, including the 60,000 mile battery warranty*, carried on to me. After 2 years I driving the Leaf I haven't seen a drop in capacity yet and I'm still under warranty. The batteries are designed to last much longer anyway. The fear dying batteries is overblown.
* - Batteries in the 2018 Leaf are warrantied for 100,000 miles.
What model of electric car do you drive? Can you tell us about your experiences with it?
Nissan Leaf owner... it's crazy quiet and comfortable. It's cheap not only because electric is cheaper than gas, but because there's almost no maintenance (no oil changes, no muffler, no coolant, no fuel filters, brake pads last longer, etc.) or an annual emissions test to pay for.
Performance is better than most would expect... very quick acceleration off the line. Above ~45 mph acceleration is more sluggish than ICE, but you can still get it up 80+ mph to land you a speeding ticket anywhere in the country. The range drops considerably if you're a lead foot or drive long distances at 55+ mph highway speeds. Efficiency is best as a city driver staying in the 25-50 mph range.
In over two years I have never charged my Leaf anywhere other than in my garage, so the charging station concern is overblown. However, I would not recommend an EV to anyone without a reliable place to charge at home.
My wife has an ICE and we use her car for road trips or swap cars if I need to go further than the Leaf's range, so I am not completely dependent on the Leaf's range. An EV is a great choice for a two-car household where one can be an ICE. If your household only has one car, you need to review your driving needs carefully before going EV and probably budget for the occasional rental.
If you're willing to buy a used EV (I did) there are some amazing deals because most owners lease them.
A prime location for a lunar [or martian] base would be inside a cave thick enough overhead to block dangerous radiation and recoverable ice/water inside.
Discovering lunar caves/lava tubes is not really news though... From 2016: https://www.space.com/32795-mo...
These are just more caves found closer to the lunar pole and hypothesizes there MIGHT be water/ice inside.
Money-wise... If I could play on a $100 PC-stick or $200 laptop what I now need a $500 PC or $1000 laptop for, then if the subscription price is right, I could even save money in the long run.
Many people get laptops from their work (free) and use it as their personal/home computer too. If they can install this Nvidia client, they could stream games at only the cost of the Nvidia service without installing games on work laptop, which would probably be frowned upon by the employer.
Bluetooth keyboards, mice, and headsets have been available for tablets for years.
Any car, EV or ICE, sitting in my driveway is filling more of my vehicle needs than a $1,000 promise note from Tesla.
So if there was a waiting list for your preferred car, a bicycle would suddenly become even better than the vehicle you're waiting on? That's delusional.
Or there are a bunch of delusional Tesla fans with more disposable income to spend on a car.... just maybe?
I drive a Model S.
Then you are clearly NOT an average example of the US population, and you are delusional if you think your personal car finances are reflective of middle america. The Model S is a fantastic car IF one is in the luxury $80K+ car market. I would love to own one, but I can't afford it and neither can most of America. Even the Model 3 price is questionable for middle class Americans if one adds anything beyond the base model.
Just for some perspective, the average new car price Americans pay is ~$33,500 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/ ). That average includes typically more expensive trucks and SUVs, so it would be less if restricted to just sedans, and ignores the massive used car market.
I could not drive a car without a fast charging network.
Sure you could, you just wouldn't be driving an $80K+ EV... you would probably drive a conventional ICE/hybrid or a cheaper EV and deal with the range. You choose the Model S option because you have the financial means. Don't presume your situation is typical.
Investors (like me, full disclosure) believe that Tesla is betting on the right horse here and that the all-or-nothing approach will give them a serious advantage over the "I want to play, too" approach of the traditional car manufacturers.
Tesla surviving/thriving long-term is only tangentially related to whether the stock is over-valued. They can survive as a company and still have a market correction on their stock price, suddenly or gradually. Stock analysts pumping up Tesla are peddling in feelings not facts, so I don't really care what they say (my main point). To be fair, much of the stock market is based on feelings and behavioral economics, but I think Tesla stock is particular glaring example of feelings taking over facts. Tesla doesn't have the physical assets to support the stock price, they don't have production capabilities to support the stock price, they don't have profits to support the stock price, there questions about whether they can obtain the raw materials of production long-term, and arguably the industry in general probably cannot support a stock price like they have currently. To that last point, the fundamental sales model is the same or at best marginally different than all other car companies.They have a good product, but it's still a car that makes most of the profit on the initial purchase and little afterwards. People act like they are tech company like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc. but the difference is those companies have myriads of potential revenue streams to exploit to support stock speculation, which are not available to Tesla selling cars. There's even some questioning if overall the car market will shrink because younger generations have less interest in owning cars.
it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3
That depends. Does the EV you can drive home right now do what you need it to do?
Any car, EV or ICE, sitting in my driveway is filling more of my vehicle needs than a $1,000 promise note from Tesla.
Without a fastcharging network the Bolt won't work for a huge percentage of the population
As someone who has owned a Nissan Leaf for two years I can confidently say that for most people you are overstating the importance of Tesla's charging station networks. I've never taken my Leaf to charging station. All of my charging has been in my garage on a standard 120V trickle charge overnight. In a pinch I could get a charge at any Nissan dealership, or a Tesla station, but I've never needed it. The mentality of "filling up" at a station disappears shortly after one gets used to having an EV. In full disclosure, my wife has an ICE and we swap cars when I need to go further than the Leaf's 80 mile range or use hers for road trips together, so the Leaf alone doesn't meet all of our household needs, but our 2-car household is pretty typical example of middle class America targeted by EV car makers.
Cool man... keep it up. A steady supply of cheap used cars is good for other people, like me, who bought a used Nissan Leaf a couple years ago at a massive discount. My Leaf runs great and meets my needs, needs that aren't changing just because a new EV with longer range comes out.
Even if I accept your statement that all other cars are "a decade behind" Tesla [which I disagree with], it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3 that you have pay $1,000 to reserve the opportunity to buy the entire car in 1-2 years (or longer). You don't seem like a total Tesla fanboy, but I think you're still making a massive excuse for them. FWIW, I have no ill will towards Tesla, I think they are doing some amazing things, I sincerely hope the company survives, and I wish I could afford a Model S, but I'll keep driving my Nissan Leaf for the foreseeable future.
Philadelphia Airport has a regional rail stop at each terminal.
A stock analyst (i.e. Munster, who is quoted in the summary) saying some Tesla action will "stoke investor optimism" means nothing... there are no concrete facts here, it's just feelings. There is no rationality to the Tesla's stock (TSLA) stock price being valued many times more than the company assets, and many times higher than the stock prices of established competing car companies, which have comparable cars to the Model 3 on the market right now (e.g. Nissan, Volkswagon, Chevy, etc.) while Tesla still struggles with production. I honestly hope Tesla survives and thrives as a company, but stock analysts aren't providing any useful information here.
The CEO's next two sentences after the one you quoted back up my point: "...I don't think we are obsessed with enforcing compliance with a one-household-per-account constraint. Because, in reality, it's a high-value programme, so that's what people are going to do."
Subscriptions can be a big mental hurdle for many consumers, even if it makes logical economic sense. However, Hollywood could also allow ticket prices to fluctuate up and down with actual market demands. Prices could go up or down based on factors like...
- Special effects/sound that benefit from the theater experience vs watching at home (e.g. action vs dramas... give people a price break if they are willing to see a drama in the theaters).
- Opening day/week vs later showings
- Popularity of the franchise
- Popularity of actors/actresses/directors
- Reward/Loyalty/Discount programs
They could track ticket sales data in real time and respond dynamically to the real market to wring every penny possible from us, like companies in other fields do, but instead they stick with their ~100 year old flat price model.
I can't understand why superhero movies are so popular? ... I only see art films myself.
Superhero and other action/special effects heavy movies make the best use of the theater's big screen and sound systems. Most dramas and art movies don't gain much if anything seeing them in the theater vs home, so people are spending their money accordingly. The dramas and art films are still being made, they just don't get theater ticket sales, which is the focus of the article.
Superhero movies are also simple fun and escape. Not everyone considers a fighting back tears watching a heart-wrenching drama an enjoyable way to spend their Saturday night. If you enjoy a movie night clutching a tissue box, that's fine, but others may prefer more escapism in their movies and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot.
Things haven't always been good around here, but I think they're looking bleaker than they have in a long time....
Basically what I want is a site that:
* Is focused on technology, science, mathematics, engineering, computing, programming, and relevant stuff like that. ...I don't think that Slashdot can be salvaged...
* Allows anonymous commenting, because having to create an account is fucking stupid.
* Has little to no censorship, since the best discussion is free discussion where people don't fear being silenced for expressing their own opinion....
I agree things look bleak on Slashdot and it's probably not salvageable... I would also like an alternative, but I haven't found it yet. However related to your criteria I think Slashdot's anonymous commentary and utter lack of censorship has handed this site over trolls and extreme opinions which have driven away the field experts who used to participate on this site. Slashdot's ideological stand against censorship has allowed the trolls rule, reduced most discussion to nonsense and opened the door to more politically-slanted submissions. There is an area between censorship and enforcing rules to foster discussion/community, which Slashdot has completely failed at.
Recently used it through my partners account to see a particular group page for a recent Kickstarter I backed and was at first reconsidering joining again, but after only a short time I realised it was not a good idea.
FWIW, my father has a Facebook account that he only uses to follow a handful of Facebook groups and he has purposely not added any "friends". His hobby is bird-watching and some birding organizations he is involved with mainly use Facebook for announcements, so that's what pushed him there, but I think he has joined or liked a few other Facebook pages since. If you don't add friends to your account, then the Facebook feed is like a very customizable news aggregator.
Cool. I should have done some research myself first. I guess that information doesn't get as much attention as pretty pictures. The resolution on satellite based GPR has to be massive. The seismometer is really cool. Although I would prefer several stationary seismometers deployed long-term around the planet, but one mobile seismometer will have to do. I am very skeptical of how much planetary information can be obtained from a mere 5-meter drill, but we'll see...I'd like to be surprised. I suspect the drill will succumb to wear before the probe's other devices from Mars dirt and mechanical force driving it, so hopefully they get it to the good drilling spots early.
Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.
...They seem to have a pretty dedicated following. ...It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content.....
Agreed. Facebook is what you make of it. People blame Facebook instead of evaluating their own behavior and interactions that make Facebook what it is.
Human nature/psychology is more likely to react to, respond, and share inane, extreme, and negative stuff than it is to intelligent, moderate, nuanced stuff, so naturally the former floats to the top of many Facebook users "experience." This phenomenon is not unique to Facebook though... Just look at the Slashdot commentary and note how often the negative, angry, and sometimes unabashed trolling comments generate the most responses [like the original post in this very discussion]. Humanity's fundamental fascination with conflict and cat pictures won't be cured by destroying Facebook. Killing Facebook would be like cutting off the head of a hydra, where two [or more] options would arise in its place fulfill people's desire for conflict and cat pictures, whether they are aware of their desires or not.
He is paying for 4 streams.
No, he's paying for 4 streams / household. If you are going to ignore the rules, you might as well ignore all of them. At least then you are honest with yourself.
Then let's also be honest that netflix doesn't mean their service to be one physical house only...that's an old-school cable TV mindset. Netflix advertises that subscribers get multiple streams so that a family with multiple homes or family members who travel a lot can all access their Netflix account from anywhere. Netflix has tiered pricing for 1, 2, and 4 streams on a single account. They know exactly what they offering and what customers will do with those options. It's built into their business model and they can change the model whenever they want.
I'm piggy-backing on the geology thought...
I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth. Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos. We have enough surficial information to say with some confidence that if there's anything really interesting going on with Mars, it's probably happening deep below ground (e.g. water, tectonics, volcanism, earthquakes, cave systems, etc.), and we don't have good tools yet to say much, if anything about Mars' underground geologic conditions. If we fund another Mars mission that just sends back more pretty pictures I'm going to be really disappointed.
Nope. I don't have a "naive fantasy" that I am "sticking it to the man," that's just your strawman argument. I have no problems at all being part of a normal market economy. I am paying Netflix for 4 streams whether I use them or someone else does. No other rationalization is needed. A streaming service is able to reduce the number of available streams to subscribers and/or put better restrictions in place on sharing as they feel it is necessary. It's no different than a software company choosing whether or not to put DRM on their software or telecoms restricting tethering, they are weighing profits vs satisfaction of customers. If Netflix changes things so my wife and I can't share as easily, then us and our respective parents will decide how we all want to spend our money, like people in a normal market economy do. Coincidentally the original article is about networks wanting to reduce number of streams to try to get more subscribers. So, a real life example of what is described in the article [and the icing on the cake is contrary to popular generational stereotypes it's the baby boomer generation parents coasting on their children.]
I'm sure all of those millennials sharing their parents' passwords will immediately sign up for cable as soon as the restrictions take effect.
It's short-sighted to say that none of them would get their own cable TV accounts. It's also possible they might sign-up for streams directly from networks like ESPN, HBO, AMC, etc., benefitting the networks and bypassing traditional cable TV.
But, it could go the other generational way too. My wife and I* have Netflix with 4 four device log-ins, but we only use 2, so we gave our respective baby-boomer parents each a device log-in. We helped our parents see the benefit of using a streaming service. If Netflix cracked down and we couldn't give our parents those device anymore, then it's very likely our parents would sign up on their own, but until then we're all happy with the arrangement.
* - We are between GenX and Millenial... both born in 1980. Make whatever assumption you want. It will not change the reality.
The thing that bothers me about the movie is the distribution deal Disney worked out with theaters. To show the film, they had to agree to keep it on screens for at least 4 weeks.
I remember going to see The Force Awakens on a Friday night a few weeks after it was released. The theater was empty...That memory stands out more than the film.
I don't know about you, but watching a movie in an empty theater feels creepy.
FWIW, I prefer watching movies in an empty theater. The more people in the theater the more likely there will be rude/annoying people around and it only takes one or two of those to ruin the experience for a lot of other viewers.
That said I don't agree or understand why Disney is forcing the 4 week minimum on theaters either. Most people aren't going to see any movie twice just because it's still in the theater, clearly, since you remember seeing The Force Awakens in an empty theater. That policy really hurts small town theaters, many of which are not showing the movie for that reason, so that can't help Disney's sales. Disney also risks cannibalising viewers from other movies in their empire (animated Disney movies, Marvel, etc.). I feel like whatever incremental sales bump they get by forcing that 4 week minimum would be off-set by those factors... but what do I know... I'm sure Disney ran all their profit maximising algorithms to support the policy...
Since we're veering off-topic anyway.... If Disney/Hollywood want to make more money in the theaters, what they should really do is throw out Hollywood's antiquated flat ticket price structure and allow prices to fluctuate up and down with real market demands (e.g. opening week vs later, action vs drama movies, more or less popular franchises or actors/actresses, discount/rewards programs, etc.).
I agree with you that we need to wait to see how successful the Switch is and they haven't really proven that yet. But, one thing you didn't mention that could give Switch an edge, is the portable/console hybrid puts it in a good position to potentially win back or retain the millions of DS users that Nintendo had amazing successes with previously. DS was broadsided by cheap mobile phone/tablet gaming. The Wii U tried and failed to win them back, and the Switch might also fail, but so far the Switch seems to have more legs than the Wii U ever did.
FWIW, I am not a Nintendo fan boy, but I don't dislike them either. I haven't bought a Nintendo product in nearly 10 years, but I hope they find their place in the market to continue to exist.