Store operators care about one thing, Return on Investment. A business case that works based on $35k robots and $15/hr. minimum wage, may not work based on $100k robots. Sure a super burger machine "could" laser scan the tomatoes, and only pick the best lettuce, and IR view the patties to ensure they are at optimal temperature, and cost $100k, but does the business case still work at $15/hr. labor?
This isn't some hobbyist building a robot in a garage, cobbled together from Arduino's, held together with duct tape to show off at the next maker fare. These will be fully developed and engineered robots, serviceable, highly reliable, with low MTBF and designed to work with food. These are industrial robots, in this market a simple welding arm can run $40k, a complete work cell can run upwards of $100k. Welcome to the world of product engineering
You know what we do with our kids on long car rides? Have them look out the window and see the amazing world outside. When they get bored with that they play imagination games with each other
In fact he was pretty darn lucky that America did exist, otherwise Columbus would be a footnote in some history book about an expedition that dissappeared and was never heard from again
But do you really know what's in that seed you planted? It might really be a Montsanto genetically engineered Frankenstein heirloom tomatoe that industry shills have relabeled as an honest pure blooded unsullied tomato seed. Plus the watering it with your rain barrel is what they want you to do since it's contaminated with chem trail mind control compounds. Tap water? You crazy it's full of Flouride and other NWO sanctioned additives.
My 2007 Honda Odyssey has this exact feature. Had a recall on it a few years ago because the rear engine mount (designed to break away in the event of a front end collision) was causing vibrations and in some cases was failing prematurely
Malaria isn't just a tropical disease. When I lived in Ottawa (most definitely not tropical), I went by the cemetery to those who built the Rideau canal, approximately 1000 people died building it, half of those from malaria. In 1830 one section of the canal had almost 800 cases of malaria out of 1300 workers. We just DDTed the hell out of everything in the 50's and 60's and pretty much wiped out malaria in North America
I think the challenge is that most of the focus has been on electricity. We now have some generally usable environmentally friendly options, however electricity only represents a small portion of total energy use that comes from fossil fuels. In 2000 90% of all energy use (not just electricity) came from fossil fuels. 15 years later after all the massive investments in renewables, we're now at 85%. Transportation still is a massive user of energy and even though there have been strides in consumer electric vehicles, even a massive shift (growth of 20%-30% in the EV market), we would still looking at more than half of all vehicles on the road being internal combustion well into the 2040's and not really phasing them out until the 2070's or 2080's. Never mind transport trucks, ships, planes, and trains. Then there is heating, industrial processes, etc, etc, etc.
We seem to treat this as if the "mean oil companies" would just get on board and stop the FUD, the problem would be solved quickly. It wont, modern society is literally built on fossil fuels, they permeate every aspect of our lives. Personally I think we should looking more at geoengineering, because if the changes that are coming are as severe as some are predicting, its really going to be our only option.
I didn't say that it would be a good idea for them to do this, in fact they are doing exactly what a high growth company should be doing. They should be spending every cent on equipment to expand production capacity and R&D for future models because that is the most valuable use of their capital. I'm arguing against those which paint Tesla as a "looser" because they aren't profitable. It is an explicit choice their making, not a signal of how viable or successful the company is. A company that is throwing off wads of cash is actually a bad single, as it implies that they cant find anything useful to do with the cash besides pay out dividends or stick it into low yield accounts
The link you posted was from 2010. If you look at their latest 2015 quarter, while they lost $320M, they spent $411M on new capital. Gross margins on their vehicle production is just under 20% and approaching 25% on the model-S. I don't have the Q4 numbers, but they spent $719 on R&D in 2015. If Tesla wanted to be profitable, they could easily do so by just reducing capital and R&D investments.
It's written in International Accounting Standards (specifically IFRS), these are very specific terms that mean things to those bankers issuing loans. Fundamentally this is related to the matching principle in accounting (one of the core tenants of accounting). Things like R&D spending and capital investment are things that a company can easily change from year to year independent what is produced in the current year. Cost of goods cannot easily be changed as they are directly related to the revenues that are produced (hence the name "Cost of Goods Sold"). A company with a positive gross margin means that they make money on the goods they sell, how they choose to spend the money they make is a key piece of data that investors look at, and the marginal utility of how that money is spent. For high growth companies, it is a good sign when they spend all of their money to expand capacity (since the marginal utility of doing that is better than putting the money in a bank account or paying dividends). For a large stable company that doesn't a have a lot of growth potential, investors would prefer they pay the money they make back to the shareholders (via stock buybacks or dividends) rather than investing in corporate jets or solid gold toilets in the CEOs washroom.
R&D spending is not considered part of Cost of Goods Sold, it and capital spending on plant are not included in Gross Margins (except for depreciation of said capital equipment). Tesla could decide tomorrow that they don't want to develop new vehicles, or expand their production capacity and become a profitable company, rather they have chosen to invest all of their margin (and then some) into expanding capacity and growth.
They make money on every car, they just choose to invest all of that money in growth rather than take profits (likely because the future value of growth is better than socking it away in some bank)
You picked the most expensive scenario and didn't continue reading to the part where the government will cover up to half of the cost. This is also for a communal charging station of which the strata would be expected to cover, so you would only pay your portion of the cost to the strata
Tesla isn't making any money because it's reinvesting everything into R&D and production tooling. This is pretty typical in high growth companies as the goal is to grow the company quickly rather than accumulate cash (or pay out dividends) for no other reason. On a gross margin basis they make money with each car.
The difference is that passengers are now more likely to get involved. Prior to 9/11, the standard response was to sit and wait, enjoy your flight to Cuba/Iran/Libya and let the negotiators sort things out. Now that turning the plane into a weapon is an option, passengers have nothing to loose by tackling, throwing hot coffee etc at the hijackers. The effectiveness of this style of attack didn't even last through 9/11 when passengers on flight 93 decided to storm the cockpit when they heard what had happened to the other planes
It's the amount of land that has a big impact. Compared to other energy sources, solar and wind (and hydro) require absolutely huge amounts of land. The Darlington Nuclear Plant generates 3.5GW of electricity and covers 4 acres. Solar Star (largest solar plant in the world) generated 579MW (or about 1/7) and covers 3500 acres (almost 1000 times as much)
It's not necessarily even a case of cost to benefit ratio being better for robots. It's entirely possible that the "ratio" in fact favors humans. Apollo 17 covered more ground on the Moon in 3 days than the Opportunity rover did in 5 years, and they brought back hundreds of pounds of carefully selected rocks screened by a geologist on the ground. The problem is that the minimum cost for a human mission is much higher than a robotic mission, even if it would proportionally return more science.
Ahh, yet if we extend your logic, no teacher can fail any student for any reason what so ever. Don't show up, pass. Don't do homework. pass, 2+2=5, pass. Murder your teacher, pass.
The school may not have a court order to take the phone, but they are well within their rights to give the student a 0 on the exam if they refuse to hand it over
Slashdot Mirror
Store operators care about one thing, Return on Investment. A business case that works based on $35k robots and $15/hr. minimum wage, may not work based on $100k robots. Sure a super burger machine "could" laser scan the tomatoes, and only pick the best lettuce, and IR view the patties to ensure they are at optimal temperature, and cost $100k, but does the business case still work at $15/hr. labor?
This isn't some hobbyist building a robot in a garage, cobbled together from Arduino's, held together with duct tape to show off at the next maker fare. These will be fully developed and engineered robots, serviceable, highly reliable, with low MTBF and designed to work with food. These are industrial robots, in this market a simple welding arm can run $40k, a complete work cell can run upwards of $100k. Welcome to the world of product engineering
UV scanners, laser spectrosopy, and visual analysis means you're no longer talking about $35k robots.
You know what we do with our kids on long car rides? Have them look out the window and see the amazing world outside. When they get bored with that they play imagination games with each other
My kids are 8 and 9, they arnt social outcasts and don't have their own phone or tablet, they won't have them either for another 4-5 years
It's spelt whiner
In fact he was pretty darn lucky that America did exist, otherwise Columbus would be a footnote in some history book about an expedition that dissappeared and was never heard from again
But do you really know what's in that seed you planted? It might really be a Montsanto genetically engineered Frankenstein heirloom tomatoe that industry shills have relabeled as an honest pure blooded unsullied tomato seed. Plus the watering it with your rain barrel is what they want you to do since it's contaminated with chem trail mind control compounds. Tap water? You crazy it's full of Flouride and other NWO sanctioned additives.
My 2007 Honda Odyssey has this exact feature. Had a recall on it a few years ago because the rear engine mount (designed to break away in the event of a front end collision) was causing vibrations and in some cases was failing prematurely
The vast majority of US foreign petroleum supplies come from Canada. Not exactly an unsecure supply
Hazardous materials transports are restricted as to when and where they can go. Hard to bring the gas to you, if they're not allowed to drive there
Malaria isn't just a tropical disease. When I lived in Ottawa (most definitely not tropical), I went by the cemetery to those who built the Rideau canal, approximately 1000 people died building it, half of those from malaria. In 1830 one section of the canal had almost 800 cases of malaria out of 1300 workers. We just DDTed the hell out of everything in the 50's and 60's and pretty much wiped out malaria in North America
I think the challenge is that most of the focus has been on electricity. We now have some generally usable environmentally friendly options, however electricity only represents a small portion of total energy use that comes from fossil fuels. In 2000 90% of all energy use (not just electricity) came from fossil fuels. 15 years later after all the massive investments in renewables, we're now at 85%. Transportation still is a massive user of energy and even though there have been strides in consumer electric vehicles, even a massive shift (growth of 20%-30% in the EV market), we would still looking at more than half of all vehicles on the road being internal combustion well into the 2040's and not really phasing them out until the 2070's or 2080's. Never mind transport trucks, ships, planes, and trains. Then there is heating, industrial processes, etc, etc, etc. We seem to treat this as if the "mean oil companies" would just get on board and stop the FUD, the problem would be solved quickly. It wont, modern society is literally built on fossil fuels, they permeate every aspect of our lives. Personally I think we should looking more at geoengineering, because if the changes that are coming are as severe as some are predicting, its really going to be our only option.
I didn't say that it would be a good idea for them to do this, in fact they are doing exactly what a high growth company should be doing. They should be spending every cent on equipment to expand production capacity and R&D for future models because that is the most valuable use of their capital. I'm arguing against those which paint Tesla as a "looser" because they aren't profitable. It is an explicit choice their making, not a signal of how viable or successful the company is. A company that is throwing off wads of cash is actually a bad single, as it implies that they cant find anything useful to do with the cash besides pay out dividends or stick it into low yield accounts
The link you posted was from 2010. If you look at their latest 2015 quarter, while they lost $320M, they spent $411M on new capital. Gross margins on their vehicle production is just under 20% and approaching 25% on the model-S. I don't have the Q4 numbers, but they spent $719 on R&D in 2015. If Tesla wanted to be profitable, they could easily do so by just reducing capital and R&D investments.
It's written in International Accounting Standards (specifically IFRS), these are very specific terms that mean things to those bankers issuing loans. Fundamentally this is related to the matching principle in accounting (one of the core tenants of accounting). Things like R&D spending and capital investment are things that a company can easily change from year to year independent what is produced in the current year. Cost of goods cannot easily be changed as they are directly related to the revenues that are produced (hence the name "Cost of Goods Sold"). A company with a positive gross margin means that they make money on the goods they sell, how they choose to spend the money they make is a key piece of data that investors look at, and the marginal utility of how that money is spent. For high growth companies, it is a good sign when they spend all of their money to expand capacity (since the marginal utility of doing that is better than putting the money in a bank account or paying dividends). For a large stable company that doesn't a have a lot of growth potential, investors would prefer they pay the money they make back to the shareholders (via stock buybacks or dividends) rather than investing in corporate jets or solid gold toilets in the CEOs washroom.
R&D spending is not considered part of Cost of Goods Sold, it and capital spending on plant are not included in Gross Margins (except for depreciation of said capital equipment). Tesla could decide tomorrow that they don't want to develop new vehicles, or expand their production capacity and become a profitable company, rather they have chosen to invest all of their margin (and then some) into expanding capacity and growth. They make money on every car, they just choose to invest all of that money in growth rather than take profits (likely because the future value of growth is better than socking it away in some bank)
You picked the most expensive scenario and didn't continue reading to the part where the government will cover up to half of the cost. This is also for a communal charging station of which the strata would be expected to cover, so you would only pay your portion of the cost to the strata
Tesla isn't making any money because it's reinvesting everything into R&D and production tooling. This is pretty typical in high growth companies as the goal is to grow the company quickly rather than accumulate cash (or pay out dividends) for no other reason. On a gross margin basis they make money with each car.
The difference is that passengers are now more likely to get involved. Prior to 9/11, the standard response was to sit and wait, enjoy your flight to Cuba/Iran/Libya and let the negotiators sort things out. Now that turning the plane into a weapon is an option, passengers have nothing to loose by tackling, throwing hot coffee etc at the hijackers. The effectiveness of this style of attack didn't even last through 9/11 when passengers on flight 93 decided to storm the cockpit when they heard what had happened to the other planes
It's the amount of land that has a big impact. Compared to other energy sources, solar and wind (and hydro) require absolutely huge amounts of land. The Darlington Nuclear Plant generates 3.5GW of electricity and covers 4 acres. Solar Star (largest solar plant in the world) generated 579MW (or about 1/7) and covers 3500 acres (almost 1000 times as much)
Canada doesn't hate you that much
It's not necessarily even a case of cost to benefit ratio being better for robots. It's entirely possible that the "ratio" in fact favors humans. Apollo 17 covered more ground on the Moon in 3 days than the Opportunity rover did in 5 years, and they brought back hundreds of pounds of carefully selected rocks screened by a geologist on the ground. The problem is that the minimum cost for a human mission is much higher than a robotic mission, even if it would proportionally return more science.
Ahh, yet if we extend your logic, no teacher can fail any student for any reason what so ever. Don't show up, pass. Don't do homework. pass, 2+2=5, pass. Murder your teacher, pass.
The school may not have a court order to take the phone, but they are well within their rights to give the student a 0 on the exam if they refuse to hand it over