Larger wings create more drag, which requires more fuel, which is heavier, requiring even more wing and fuel. It's a cycle of inefficiency, so you do NOT want a plane with much larger wings (more lift) than you need, not for efficiency. The drag caused by the wing is over half the drag (cost) of flying the plane.
> making the whole plane a lifting surface does not make it more efficient.
The word plane here is the same thing as in high school geometry - a flat surface, the wing. The wing is the plane, it's the wing the flies. The fuselage is an extra source of drag attached to the plane, so you have something to put passengers in. It's far more efficient to fly the wing without the aerodynamically pointless, wasteful fuselage bolted on.
The reason planes ever even had a fuselage, other than for passengers, is because you needed a tail. A wing by itself isn't stable - is doesn't fly straight. You need tail feathers to keep it pointed forward. Just like a dart. So you have to attach a rear fuselage sticking out to attach the tail too. BUT you also need the center of gravity to be at about the same point as the center of lift, approximately 27% of the chord length aft of the leading edge. That means in order to balance at the right point, you need something sticking out in front of the wing. Otherwise the center of pressure being fore of the cog would cause a pitching moment.
In the last few years, electronic systems have progressed to the point where you can have active stability, electronic controls keeping the plane in the proper attitude, so positive static aerodynamic stability is no longer required. There is now no requirement to have a tail, and therefore no requirement for the very wasteful fuselage. That's why you see new military planes using the flying wing design (B-2, RQ-180, Switchblade), blended wing-body (Boeing X-48, RQ-170), or lifting body, where the the entire aircraft is designed as part of the lifting wing (F-15). The F-15 actually flew with the wing extension, the part most people would call "the wing" completely removed, because the entire aircraft was designed to function as a crude wing.
To summarize the article, in some instances the administrator can update firmware. The hardware doesn't require that the firmware be signed, so you can use your own firmware. That means if a bad guy has full control of your system, he could install malicious firmware.
Action to take: If a system gets rooted, consider updating firmware for disk controllers and such before you re-install the OS.
By the way, quite separate from this story, you DO need to re-install the OS if you get a root kit. It's impossible to reliably "clean up" a rooted system without reinstalling, and that has always been true. This story reminds us to do the firmware as well if you get rooted.
Real unemployment rose under Obama, to pre-Reagan levels.
The percentage of people employed fell. If you want to call it "real unemployment", the amount of people UNemployed rose from 2008-2016, and has been stable for the last two years.
You say "historic low"; it should be made clear it's not a record low. The percentage of adults working, the labor force participation rate, was lower than this until the early 1980s. In the eighties, the number of people working significantly increased. It stayed relatively stable at that higher level for 26 years. Then it dropped very significantly from 2008-2016. It's been fairly stable for the last two years.
Chemists know what organic compound means (somewhat), but to a significant percentage of the population organic means "natural". Heck even chemists can't agree on a definition of "organic compound". Maybe "carbon" would have been more specific and therefore more clear, if that's what is meant.
Of course, a certain percentage of Slashdot readers would think "carbon" means "omg Martians were burning fossil fuels and destroyed their planet by global warming", but I guess no wording is completely idiot proof.
It occurs to me the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 through the time when the Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All southern governors were Democrats for 90 years, 90 years during which whites controlled the vote in the south.
To whatever extent Republicans started embracing the south in 1968, they were becoming *more like* the Democrats, who had controlled the South for nearly a century. Lessening their opposition to racism would have *reduced* partisanship, not increased it.
Poll numbers bear this out. Their wasn't a radical increase in partisan attitudes after 1968. There was more partisanship BEFORE - the south hated the party of Lincoln and Everett Dirksen. Dirksen was seriously in danger of being assassinated by Southern white activists.
> Will the number of lives saved by having a fuselage outweigh
As a passenger, I certainly feel safer if the plane still has it's fuselage.
Mainly because I'm sitting in the fuselage, I prefer it to still be attached to the plane (which is the wing and tail).
More seriously, a more efficient design actually doesn't have a fuselage. A flying wing like the B2 is more efficient, and airlines have researched using them, but passengers prefer windows and boarding is easier with a fuselage and aisle, as opposed to theater style seating in a flying wing.
I didn't feel the need to spell that out. I figured it's pretty clear which party argues for limited federal government and which party agrees with the Nazis and always wants the national government to have more and more power. I figured I had already pointed out most of the main things the Nazis advocated, and for each pointed out that the modern left pretty much advocates the same things, in most cases. I thought I'd leave the question of limited government as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, when someone has an idea, but they don't know anything about the topic, and someone else does know about the topic, an effective conversation goes something like this;
Person A: I have an idea that might work, or might spark a different idea that works, but I don't really know much about this topic. What do you think of...?
Person B: That's an interesting idea. In my home town, we had a bus system. The way that worked...
We have conversations like that at work. A few days ago I posted a "I don't know much about the topic, but..." post here. Unfortunately, since the late 1980s US political dialog is more like:
Person A: You bastard murderer, you want everyone to take their assault weapons to schools and shoot up kids! Why do you want that to still be legal!? We have to ban handguns now, and all semiautomatic machine guns! You murderous piece of shit!
Me: Wow you're an idiot. Take a Vicodin and go get a clue, please.
Some of the change is probably related to the TV news networks going full partisan in the late 1980s. We went from Walter Cronkite trying to at least appear some neutral to one network demonizing Republicans and another demonizing Democrats. Viewers moved to whichever network was aligned with their political views, and the news they see is all demonizing "the other side".
Also the change is how primaries work, in the 1950s, made a difference. Until then, the debate would be mostly *within* each party. People were arguing a particular point, but arguing with people they mostly agreed with on other things. After that, the parties became more homogeneous on issues, with Republicans taking one side and Democrats taking the other side. So now instead of debate amongst friends, people are trying to defeat the enemy.
Stupid error on my part. That was supposed to say:
seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Republican politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Democrat politician ever says is automatically right.
More likely, perhaps, lots of people have various ideas and points of view that have value. Sometimes "A and B" is the best answer, rather than arguing over A or B.
My kid does the opposite. She almost never argues and almost always wins. It goes like this:
Her: Can you take me to...? Me: No, I'm sorry, I'm tired. Her: Okay, I'll be quite so you can nap. After a nap can you take me?
Her: I want to play with my toy. Me: Sorry, it's time to go. Her: Okay, I can take my toy in the car.
Her: I want to wear my new T shirt. Me: It's cold, you need a warm shirt. Her: Okay, I'll put my jacket on over my T-shirt.
That's a three year old.
I wish us grown-ups could learn how to say "okay, I see your point. We can address that by...". Especially our "leaders", why can't they be as diplomatic, and frankly mature, as a three year old? Have we EVER heard this "debate" in Congress?:
D: Everybody should get X. My bill gets X for everyone (except rich people making over $50K) R: That would be nice, but your bill costs $10 billion. We're already over budget and can't afford it. D: Okay, the program I proposed 3 years ago isn't working out as well as I expected. We can cancel that and move the funds to this.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Wouldn't it be great to even ever hear any Democrat or Republican say "we thought it was a good idea, but it's not actually working that well, so we can stop doing that."
Hmm, maybe if I encourage my daughter to keep doing "okay, I see your point, let's do this", perhaps one day should could grow up to make a real difference as Speaker of the House or President or something.
I suppose McCain did SOME of that, as did Lieberman, and that's part of why they got along so well - they respected each other's viewpoints, though they were different.
You're refreshingly open-minded. 95% of people post here seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
The idea that perhaps people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum sometimes make a good point, or have a good idea, is rare, and refreshing.
It's fun to quote Clinton to people, get their (normally extreme) reaction, then say "oops, that was Trump who said that, not Clinton. My mistake." The cognitive dissonance is visible on their face as they realize just a moment ago they were cheering the policy (because they thought it was Clinton's), then they are horrified to realize the policy they loved a minute ago is actually a Trump policy. Or vice-versa, it works both ways.
Particularly on guns the idea of basing your opinion of a proposal on who made the proposal is extra silly, because 90% of gun owners are Republicans. It's a topic on which Democrats *literally* don't know what they're talking about, don't know the basic vocabulary. There's nothing wrong with not being interested in that hobby, of course. Republicans don't know anything about 1960s culture. Since they don't know what a semiautomatic is, they go around saying utterly ridiculous made-up things like "assault weapon", which sounds like "a series of tubes" to those of us who know the vocabulary.
Anyway, your post was refreshing. Looking at ideas from lots of different people and considering if they make sense is a good idea. I happen to disagree with you on several points, and I think the numbers indicate some of those ideas would not be at all effective. Some of the things you said make it clear that you aren't someone who has an interest in guns - they don't actually make sense if you know a bit about guns, but I applaud your open mind.
I understand about 20% of what you said. It just reminds me everything stays super complicated down to the level is a bunch of different subatomic particles that we don't understand at all. All this complex system Ina single atom. Then 100 trillion atoms in a single cell of my body, making up complex structures such as ion pumps to move various things in and out of the cell, self-replication machinery, thousands of structures. With all of these systems within systems within systems too complex for physicists to understand, even your ear being far more complex than a Core i7.
Amazing that all of it, all of these systems and structures, quintillions of individual parts just happened to randomly come together into perfectly working, self-sufficient systems without any of it ever being designed.
User land is everything that's not the kernel. All of your personal files? User land.
I take it you mean:
Most of the time, you can't overwrite important system files unless: 1. You're in the administrator group on Windows 2. You are root on Linux, using a whitelisted program to alter a whitelisted file in a specifically allowed way 3. You're root and using a 1993 version of Linux 4. The last time you looked at SELinux was 15 years ago. 15 years ago, it was inconvenient to use, so you've been turning it off ever since.
You're right, since 1953 border patrol has had the authority to act within 100 miles of the border. It seems that in the last ten years or so they have significantly increased their interior operations.
> no skin off of their nose if it costs you your last shreds of privacy, your firstborn, your tax dollars, or whatever else.
Your name and passport number isn't private while crossing the border. Cameras and computers and cheaper than border guards. Seems to me this will cost fewer tax dollars and have roughly zero privacy impact.
> doesn't matter that this adds nothing of value whatsoever. Competence, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, are all irrelevant. They're made out of pure cover-your-assium. That is all.
Seems more cost-effective to me. They have their problems, of course, as all government entities do. This doesn't seem like an example of any of that.
The whole "within 100 miles of the border" thing they did a while back - THAT was fucked up.
You also see Bayer in the supermarket, it's a brand. As you said, Mondelez International isn't a big grocery brand (it's a new company) Nabisco and Kraft are major consumer brands. Of course if you're choosing between a major brand name and new name nobody has heard of, you keep using the successful brand.
I mentioned their stock price says Tesla is the world's largest company (though they sell thousands of cars, while real car companies sell millions). The fanbois then typically say "but they make *electric* cars, and electric cars are the future." Okay, but you should know Tesla isn't the biggest electric cass maker either. The biggest electric car maker would be either Nissan or one of a three Chinese companies. The Chinese companies are intertwined, and sales figures are hard to come by, but the majority of electric cars are made in China.
> Tesla will either crash and burn, or be completely out of the woods, in 3 months. Call it 6 months just for some wiggle room: by the end of the year, Tesla will be either gone or a rock solid investment.
Tesla's current stock valuation has them bigger than General Motors, Ford, or Toyota. Let's look carefully at TFS:
-- Last quarter, it delivered just 8,180 Model 3s --
There are about a dozen companies which each delivered MILLIONS of cars in that time frame. Nissan, Honda, Daimler, Fiat - all of these companies are FAR larger than Tesla, but the stock price has Tesla as the largest auto maker in history. If Tesla gets really, really lucky and actually becomes the world's largest automaker in 50 years that'll mean investors don't lose money, it'll justify the *current* stock price. If Tesla gets only as big as General Motors, investors will lose about half their money.
> All changing your name like that does is publicly admit that your reputation is impossible to salvage and you are trying to be sneaky.
What the heck are you talking about? Why in the world would the larger company, Bayer, change ITS name to the name of the smaller company it is acquiring? Of course Bayer is keeping their name.
What could be sneaky be if $bigcompany bought $smallcompany and then changed its name to $smallcompany. Keeping their name is what companies normally do when they make acquisitions.
There are a lot of links to GitHub that would stop working, and be redirected to Microsoft. A lot of dormant or semi-dormant projects that developed software that's still perfectly usable would vanish. That probably wouldn't be worth $2 billion, but it would suck.
Approximately nobody wants to be a scooter that will burn their house down. Especially nobody wants their next door neighbor to buy one that ends up burning down your house too.
That's an entirely different thing from products that simply aren't well made, cheap Chinese products that break after a month of use. Sometimes I DO want a cheap product that I only need for a couple of uses. Market forces can more or less work for overall quality, though of course no system is perfect.
Consider also the difference between these:
1. You may not sell cheap stuff made in China. 2. If you sell dangerously defective things, you're responsible for injuries and damages your products cause.
There is a difference between the government deciding what you can and can't do vs the common-sense principle that you are responsible for the results of your actions.
Here buyers are suing in civil court to recover damages caused by Amazon selling dangerously defective goods. This isn't a criminal charge, the government putting people in jail for not doing what they are told. This is a private, consensual transaction - Amazon listed scooters for sale, the consumer paid Amazon for a fun scooter. Amazon instead delivered a fire bomb. The consumer asks that Amazon compensate them for the damage caused by the item Amazon sent them.
Slashdot Mirror
> Planes already have plenty of lift;
Larger wings create more drag, which requires more fuel, which is heavier, requiring even more wing and fuel. It's a cycle of inefficiency, so you do NOT want a plane with much larger wings (more lift) than you need, not for efficiency. The drag caused by the wing is over half the drag (cost) of flying the plane.
> making the whole plane a lifting surface does not make it more efficient.
The word plane here is the same thing as in high school geometry - a flat surface, the wing. The wing is the plane, it's the wing the flies. The fuselage is an extra source of drag attached to the plane, so you have something to put passengers in. It's far more efficient to fly the wing without the aerodynamically pointless, wasteful fuselage bolted on.
The reason planes ever even had a fuselage, other than for passengers, is because you needed a tail. A wing by itself isn't stable - is doesn't fly straight. You need tail feathers to keep it pointed forward. Just like a dart. So you have to attach a rear fuselage sticking out to attach the tail too. BUT you also need the center of gravity to be at about the same point as the center of lift, approximately 27% of the chord length aft of the leading edge. That means in order to balance at the right point, you need something sticking out in front of the wing. Otherwise the center of pressure being fore of the cog would cause a pitching moment.
In the last few years, electronic systems have progressed to the point where you can have active stability, electronic controls keeping the plane in the proper attitude, so positive static aerodynamic stability is no longer required. There is now no requirement to have a tail, and therefore no requirement for the very wasteful fuselage. That's why you see new military planes using the flying wing design (B-2, RQ-180, Switchblade), blended wing-body (Boeing X-48, RQ-170), or lifting body, where the the entire aircraft is designed as part of the lifting wing (F-15). The F-15 actually flew with the wing extension, the part most people would call "the wing" completely removed, because the entire aircraft was designed to function as a crude wing.
To summarize the article, in some instances the administrator can update firmware. The hardware doesn't require that the firmware be signed, so you can use your own firmware. That means if a bad guy has full control of your system, he could install malicious firmware.
Action to take:
If a system gets rooted, consider updating firmware for disk controllers and such before you re-install the OS.
By the way, quite separate from this story, you DO need to re-install the OS if you get a root kit. It's impossible to reliably "clean up" a rooted system without reinstalling, and that has always been true. This story reminds us to do the firmware as well if you get rooted.
> So why are headhunters still calling me up
Does that answer your question?
They are calling you. Bad is when they aren't returning your calls.
Hopefully when they call, you're letting them know what rate you're looking for so they can (only) call you with opportunities that fit?
That should be:
Real unemployment rose under Obama, to pre-Reagan levels.
The percentage of people employed fell. If you want to call it "real unemployment", the amount of people UNemployed rose from 2008-2016, and has been stable for the last two years.
You say "historic low"; it should be made clear it's not a record low. The percentage of adults working, the labor force participation rate, was lower than this until the early 1980s. In the eighties, the number of people working significantly increased. It stayed relatively stable at that higher level for 26 years. Then it dropped very significantly from 2008-2016. It's been fairly stable for the last two years.
You can set a data range here to see the trends:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...
If you want to cram all of this into a headline or tweet, the headline would be:
Real unemployment fell under Obama, to pre-Reagan levels.
Oh crap, this fact doesn't fit the narrative I heard on TV from my favorite comedian. It must be false.
Chemists know what organic compound means (somewhat), but to a significant percentage of the population organic means "natural". Heck even chemists can't agree on a definition of "organic compound". Maybe "carbon" would have been more specific and therefore more clear, if that's what is meant.
Of course, a certain percentage of Slashdot readers would think "carbon" means "omg Martians were burning fossil fuels and destroyed their planet by global warming", but I guess no wording is completely idiot proof.
That's an interesting idea.
It occurs to me the southern vote was solid Democrat from the time Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 through the time when the Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All southern governors were Democrats for 90 years, 90 years during which whites controlled the vote in the south.
To whatever extent Republicans started embracing the south in 1968, they were becoming *more like* the Democrats, who had controlled the South for nearly a century. Lessening their opposition to racism would have *reduced* partisanship, not increased it.
Poll numbers bear this out. Their wasn't a radical increase in partisan attitudes after 1968. There was more partisanship BEFORE - the south hated the party of Lincoln and Everett Dirksen. Dirksen was seriously in danger of being assassinated by Southern white activists.
> Will the number of lives saved by having a fuselage outweigh
As a passenger, I certainly feel safer if the plane still has it's fuselage.
Mainly because I'm sitting in the fuselage, I prefer it to still be attached to the plane (which is the wing and tail).
More seriously, a more efficient design actually doesn't have a fuselage. A flying wing like the B2 is more efficient, and airlines have researched using them, but passengers prefer windows and boarding is easier with a fuselage and aisle, as opposed to theater style seating in a flying wing.
Thanks.
I didn't feel the need to spell that out. I figured it's pretty clear which party argues for limited federal government and which party agrees with the Nazis and always wants the national government to have more and more power. I figured I had already pointed out most of the main things the Nazis advocated, and for each pointed out that the modern left pretty much advocates the same things, in most cases. I thought I'd leave the question of limited government as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, when someone has an idea, but they don't know anything about the topic, and someone else does know about the topic, an effective conversation goes something like this;
Person A: I have an idea that might work, or might spark a different idea that works, but I don't really know much about this topic. What do you think of ...?
Person B: That's an interesting idea. In my home town, we had a bus system. The way that worked ...
We have conversations like that at work. A few days ago I posted a "I don't know much about the topic, but ..." post here.
Unfortunately, since the late 1980s US political dialog is more like:
Person A: You bastard murderer, you want everyone to take their assault weapons to schools and shoot up kids! Why do you want that to still be legal!? We have to ban handguns now, and all semiautomatic machine guns! You murderous piece of shit!
Me: Wow you're an idiot. Take a Vicodin and go get a clue, please.
Some of the change is probably related to the TV news networks going full partisan in the late 1980s. We went from Walter Cronkite trying to at least appear some neutral to one network demonizing Republicans and another demonizing Democrats. Viewers moved to whichever network was aligned with their political views, and the news they see is all demonizing "the other side".
Also the change is how primaries work, in the 1950s, made a difference. Until then, the debate would be mostly *within* each party. People were arguing a particular point, but arguing with people they mostly agreed with on other things. After that, the parties became more homogeneous on issues, with Republicans taking one side and Democrats taking the other side. So now instead of debate amongst friends, people are trying to defeat the enemy.
Stupid error on my part. That was supposed to say:
seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Republican politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Democrat politician ever says is automatically right.
More likely, perhaps, lots of people have various ideas and points of view that have value. Sometimes "A and B" is the best answer, rather than arguing over A or B.
My kid does the opposite. She almost never argues and almost always wins. It goes like this:
Her: Can you take me to ...?
Me: No, I'm sorry, I'm tired.
Her: Okay, I'll be quite so you can nap. After a nap can you take me?
Her: I want to play with my toy.
Me: Sorry, it's time to go.
Her: Okay, I can take my toy in the car.
Her: I want to wear my new T shirt.
Me: It's cold, you need a warm shirt.
Her: Okay, I'll put my jacket on over my T-shirt.
That's a three year old.
I wish us grown-ups could learn how to say "okay, I see your point. We can address that by ...". Especially our "leaders", why can't they be as diplomatic, and frankly mature, as a three year old? Have we EVER heard this "debate" in Congress?:
D: Everybody should get X. My bill gets X for everyone (except rich people making over $50K)
R: That would be nice, but your bill costs $10 billion. We're already over budget and can't afford it.
D: Okay, the program I proposed 3 years ago isn't working out as well as I expected. We can cancel that and move the funds to this.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Wouldn't it be great to even ever hear any Democrat or Republican say "we thought it was a good idea, but it's not actually working that well, so we can stop doing that."
Hmm, maybe if I encourage my daughter to keep doing "okay, I see your point, let's do this", perhaps one day should could grow up to make a real difference as Speaker of the House or President or something.
I suppose McCain did SOME of that, as did Lieberman, and that's part of why they got along so well - they respected each other's viewpoints, though they were different.
You're refreshingly open-minded. 95% of people post here seem to believe on of two things;
1. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
or
2. Everything any Democrat politician ever says is stupid, and anything a Republican politician ever says is automatically right.
The idea that perhaps people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum sometimes make a good point, or have a good idea, is rare, and refreshing.
It's fun to quote Clinton to people, get their (normally extreme) reaction, then say "oops, that was Trump who said that, not Clinton. My mistake." The cognitive dissonance is visible on their face as they realize just a moment ago they were cheering the policy (because they thought it was Clinton's), then they are horrified to realize the policy they loved a minute ago is actually a Trump policy. Or vice-versa, it works both ways.
Particularly on guns the idea of basing your opinion of a proposal on who made the proposal is extra silly, because 90% of gun owners are Republicans. It's a topic on which Democrats *literally* don't know what they're talking about, don't know the basic vocabulary. There's nothing wrong with not being interested in that hobby, of course. Republicans don't know anything about 1960s culture. Since they don't know what a semiautomatic is, they go around saying utterly ridiculous made-up things like "assault weapon", which sounds like "a series of tubes" to those of us who know the vocabulary.
Anyway, your post was refreshing. Looking at ideas from lots of different people and considering if they make sense is a good idea. I happen to disagree with you on several points, and I think the numbers indicate some of those ideas would not be at all effective. Some of the things you said make it clear that you aren't someone who has an interest in guns - they don't actually make sense if you know a bit about guns, but I applaud your open mind.
I understand about 20% of what you said. It just reminds me everything stays super complicated down to the level is a bunch of different subatomic particles that we don't understand at all. All this complex system Ina single atom. Then 100 trillion atoms in a single cell of my body, making up complex structures such as ion pumps to move various things in and out of the cell, self-replication machinery, thousands of structures. With all of these systems within systems within systems too complex for physicists to understand, even your ear being far more complex than a Core i7.
Amazing that all of it, all of these systems and structures, quintillions of individual parts just happened to randomly come together into perfectly working, self-sufficient systems without any of it ever being designed.
User land is everything that's not the kernel.
All of your personal files? User land.
I take it you mean:
Most of the time, you can't overwrite important system files unless:
1. You're in the administrator group on Windows
2. You are root on Linux, using a whitelisted program to alter a whitelisted file in a specifically allowed way
3. You're root and using a 1993 version of Linux
4. The last time you looked at SELinux was 15 years ago. 15 years ago, it was inconvenient to use, so you've been turning it off ever since.
You're right, since 1953 border patrol has had the authority to act within 100 miles of the border. It seems that in the last ten years or so they have significantly increased their interior operations.
> no skin off of their nose if it costs you your last shreds of privacy, your firstborn, your tax dollars, or whatever else.
Your name and passport number isn't private while crossing the border. Cameras and computers and cheaper than border guards. Seems to me this will cost fewer tax dollars and have roughly zero privacy impact.
> doesn't matter that this adds nothing of value whatsoever. Competence, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, are all irrelevant. They're made out of pure cover-your-assium. That is all.
Seems more cost-effective to me. They have their problems, of course, as all government entities do. This doesn't seem like an example of any of that.
The whole "within 100 miles of the border" thing they did a while back - THAT was fucked up.
You also see Bayer in the supermarket, it's a brand.
As you said, Mondelez International isn't a big grocery brand (it's a new company) Nabisco and Kraft are major consumer brands. Of course if you're choosing between a major brand name and new name nobody has heard of, you keep using the successful brand.
I mentioned their stock price says Tesla is the world's largest company (though they sell thousands of cars, while real car companies sell millions). The fanbois then typically say "but they make *electric* cars, and electric cars are the future." Okay, but you should know Tesla isn't the biggest electric cass maker either. The biggest electric car maker would be either Nissan or one of a three Chinese companies. The Chinese companies are intertwined, and sales figures are hard to come by, but the majority of electric cars are made in China.
> Tesla will either crash and burn, or be completely out of the woods, in 3 months. Call it 6 months just for some wiggle room: by the end of the year, Tesla will be either gone or a rock solid investment.
Tesla's current stock valuation has them bigger than General Motors, Ford, or Toyota. Let's look carefully at TFS:
--
Last quarter, it delivered just 8,180 Model 3s
--
There are about a dozen companies which each delivered MILLIONS of cars in that time frame. Nissan, Honda, Daimler, Fiat - all of these companies are FAR larger than Tesla, but the stock price has Tesla as the largest auto maker in history. If Tesla gets really, really lucky and actually becomes the world's largest automaker in 50 years that'll mean investors don't lose money, it'll justify the *current* stock price. If Tesla gets only as big as General Motors, investors will lose about half their money.
> All changing your name like that does is publicly admit that your reputation is impossible to salvage and you are trying to be sneaky.
What the heck are you talking about? Why in the world would the larger company, Bayer, change ITS name to the name of the smaller company it is acquiring? Of course Bayer is keeping their name.
What could be sneaky be if $bigcompany bought $smallcompany and then changed its name to $smallcompany. Keeping their name is what companies normally do when they make acquisitions.
There are a lot of links to GitHub that would stop working, and be redirected to Microsoft. A lot of dormant or semi-dormant projects that developed software that's still perfectly usable would vanish. That probably wouldn't be worth $2 billion, but it would suck.
A few years back, the only reason they'd buy it would have been to shut it down.
Approximately nobody wants to be a scooter that will burn their house down. Especially nobody wants their next door neighbor to buy one that ends up burning down your house too.
That's an entirely different thing from products that simply aren't well made, cheap Chinese products that break after a month of use. Sometimes I DO want a cheap product that I only need for a couple of uses. Market forces can more or less work for overall quality, though of course no system is perfect.
Consider also the difference between these:
1. You may not sell cheap stuff made in China.
2. If you sell dangerously defective things, you're responsible for injuries and damages your products cause.
There is a difference between the government deciding what you can and can't do vs the common-sense principle that you are responsible for the results of your actions.
Here buyers are suing in civil court to recover damages caused by Amazon selling dangerously defective goods. This isn't a criminal charge, the government putting people in jail for not doing what they are told. This is a private, consensual transaction - Amazon listed scooters for sale, the consumer paid Amazon for a fun scooter. Amazon instead delivered a fire bomb. The consumer asks that Amazon compensate them for the damage caused by the item Amazon sent them.