The US spends more on education than most developed countries, much more in many cases, and gets worse results. Over the last 20 years, we've thrown more money at schools and got worse results. More money isn't improving outcomes.
Perhaps we should look at the countries that get better results and see what they are doing differently. They're spending less money than the US, not more.
I haven't done a rigorous study, but I have noticed that our schools seem to spend a LOT of time (aka money) on non-academic things, things that are somewhat political like "Mexican heritage month". Kids in the US spend 180 days in school. When three or four months of that are spent on teaching diversity, tolerance, environmental awareness, etc, that's all time not spent on math, reading, science etc. That must have an impact.
You bring up a good point. There is also an interesting counter-point, leading to need to balance the two.
Certainly a major deficiency in one area can override one's excellence in another. If an amazing technician has no ability at all to communicate with other people, he'll do little good. On the other hand, major advances, and perhaps the majority of overall good, are done by specialists, people good at one thing.
I don't have the people skills of a good salesman, and it would be a waste for me spend time developing that, because major companies HAVE sales people, who are not the development engineers. It is wise to practice getting really good at what YOU do, rather than trying to achieve mediocracy in what everyone else does. So there is a balance there - improve your weak points - until they are no longer a major hindrance to using your strong points. I suck at graphic design, and that's perfectly okay - the graphic designers handle that, and more affordably than it would cost to have me doing graphic design.
Some "weak points" are also an alternative term for strong points. Every US president has been profoundly arrogant. They actually believed that not only they SHOULD be elected President, but that most people would see that, everyone would agree that they should be President of the United States. How arrogant is that! Tame your arrogance, if it's a problem, but don't work TOO hard at becoming exactly average in every way, I'd say.
Good tips. If you're actively making your team and your boss succeed and look good, most people will leave you alone and let you do that.
I've also learned that precedents are established quickly. Whatever you want to establish about relationships at work, establish it early. Also however you want to be seen, be thought of, put that out there early.
Some people introduce themselves and quickly show "I'm a friendly guy and you'll like me", others want to show themselves to be tough or whatever. For me, I like to establish "technical credibility", I show that I know what I'm talking about, when I speak about technical issues it makes sense to listen to what I'm saying. (Part of that is keeping my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about, or asking questions rather than making assumptions).
Here's another tip I just learned - proofread what you write.:)
My first tip was supposed to be "make friends in the industry", not "male friends". Indeed when it comes to networking and friendships, in average females are probably statistically more open to relating than males are.
I can tell you a few things that have worked for me. I'll go in chronological order rather than priority order.
Male friends in the industry you want to be in. Referrals are a major way people get jobs.
Look at the job listings for jobs you'd like to have and see which skills a lot of companies want, but you're missing. For me that's Java. A lot companies list Java skills and I'm not particularly good with Java. Then consider learning the skills you lack, the ones a lot of job postings are looking for.
Certifications, posted on your LinkedIn, let recruiters find you when they want someone with your skills. Some people will point out that certifications don't prove skill, people can cheat. But certifications CLAIM a certain skill level. When I list "Cisco CCNA" on my resume, I'm claiming a very specific level of networking knowledge, which can be confirmed in an interview. People also point out that (entry-level) certifications don't prove expert-level knowledge. Duh. Entry-level certifications show entry-level knowledge. Advanced certifications like CCIE show expert knowledge. But the point is, certificates are clear, industry standard ways that recruiters actually use to find candidates that match.
With those three steps done, you should have multiple requests for interviews. You have the right skills, and recruiters looking for those skills find you. So now what about the boss that makes you hate showing up for work?
Plan how you can screen the company and interview the boss. I see a lot of job ads for Wells Fargo because they are trying to hire people with my skills in my city. But we know from the news that Wells Fargo corporate culture is to lie, cheat, and steal to make monthly targets. I won't be applying at Wells Fargo. In interviews, I try to ask questions that give me some insight into the boss and the company. I can afford to walk away to the extent I've done the other steps, acquiring skills that are in-demand and marketing myself.
I bet other people reading this have some good tips of their own. Who has one to share?
You quoted a lot. Is there one part exactly do you have in mind? The thesis of my post is of course "constant learning, on purpose, makes you better"
> you take this attitude towards other people, people will not ask your for help. At the same time, you'll be also be not able to ask for their help.
Are you saying that trying to learn means you can't ask for help, or was there something more specific? For me, trying to learn means asking.
Trying to learn, I've had the opportunity to ask for help from people like Neil Brown, ESR, Florian Weimer, Randal Schwartz, and Ralf Engelschall. I've certainly learned from them, and gotten good help.
I ask because the one thing I enjoy more than designing programs and learning to do that better I'd helping OTHER people learn to do better software. I've been slowly creating a position for myself where hopefully I spend at least half my time doing that. Currently, I spend about 35% of my time helping other programmers, answering questions or whatever. Want to do more of that.
I really enjoyed something that happened the other day. The lead architect asked our team "what is this function for? @Ray this looks like your code". He could tell it was mine because it used a certain more advanced coding technique that makes the code easier to read and understand (thereby reducing bugs). The cool thing is, had he looked it the commit, he's have seen another programmer's name on it. It was done by a programmer who has been pushed to spend more time on paperwork, because he's better at paperwork than code. But he and I have been spending a lot of time working together, with him asking me questions throughout the day. "My" techniques for clearer, less bug-prone software are now showing up in code written by junior members of the team, because they come ask me, and we learn together. I think that's awesome.
Of course they are important. I wouldn't have done those things if they weren't important!
I frequently have friends say things like "I love baking. I can't get enough of baking. I'm going to open a bakery.". I ask them "do you love dealing with taxes, every month? Do you love contract law? Employment law? Marketing? Accounting?" If you LOVE baking, the smart thing to do is to spend your time baking. Running a start-up business, you're not going to do much baking.
If you love marketing, employment law, taxes, etc, then start your own business. If you love writing software, and you're really good at it, then someone will pay you six figures to do what you love.
Of course, the ideal for a really good programmer is to partner with young Bill Gates on a new business, and you do the software while he does the business. That doesn't happen often, though.
> The people can do both are smart enough to build their own company and compete with you.
Been there, done that. Learned a few lessons. Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring, managing people, corporate strategy, staying up on the competition, figuring out tax changes each year and getting taxes filed six times each year, the various state and local requirements, legal changes, contract hassles, etc, while hoping the company makes money this month so they can take a paycheck and lay their rent.
I learned that I'm good at creating software systems and I enjoy it. I don't enjoy all-nighters, partners being dickheads trying to pull out of a contract, or any of a thousand other things related to running a start-up business. I really enjoy a consistent, six-figure compensation package too.
I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good programmer and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things I'm not good at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)
I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that for twenty years.
I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years. They never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was wrong 20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days of improvement.
> fleet-wide averages, without as much exception for "trucks."
There are two (or more) completely separate fleets. Cars, light trucks, medium trucks (and busses), heavy trucks, motorcycles. There is no "exception", the two groups are computed entirely separately, based on entirely different MPG standards and different average lifetime miles.
For CAFE purposes, each company is essentially split into two companies - a truck company and a car company. (Also motorcycles and large trucks are computed entirely separate, as if they were different companies). You can read the full details in the EPA rules above.
So first the company does its cars. The first step on calculating the car standard is to find the average size (footprint) of the company's cars. I'll directly quote the EPA rule on this rather than trying to explain it in my own words: -- EPAâ(TM)s final standards, like the standards NHTSA promulgated in March 2009 for MY 2011, are expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint. Footprint is one measure of vehicle size, and is determined by multiplying the vehicleâ(TM)s wheelbase by the vehicleâ(TM)s average track width. --
After finding the footprint, you look at the table (section 3, I think) that gives the formula for your range. Inputting the average footprint, the formula tells what the average fuel economy needs to be, in GALLONS PER MILE.
It's gallons per mile because a vehicle that gets 1MPG burns twice as much gas as one that gets 2MPG, but a vehicle that gets 99MPG is almost the same as one that gets 100MPG.
Subtract your company's ACTUAL average GPM for cars from the standard to get the amount of credit or debit. If the company is more efficient than required, it can either save those credits for next year, or sell the credits to another car company. Similarly, if this year's sales aren't efficient enough, the company can either use credits it earned in an earlier year, or buy credits from a more efficient company. (Credit brokers are allowed, but cannot actually own the credits, only bank them).
Once your done with the cars, you go through the same procedure, separately, for your motorcycles, then again completely separately for light trucks, etc.
I mentioned that a company that doesn't meet its target can buy credits from a company that the target. What Mack beats their heavy truck target, while BMW needs to buy credits for their cars? Mack has truck credits to sell, BMW wants to buy car credits. The public doesn't care whether a gallon of gas is burned in a motorcycle or a bus, they only care how much as is burned, so before trading companies can apply a formula to convert light truck credits to car credits, or car credits to medium truck credits or whatever. (It's not one-for-one, different kinds of credits are "worth" different amounts). Note that it may be Volvo's truck credits offsetting Ferrari's car debit. The Corporate in CAFE doesn't matter once you start trading different kinds of credits.
Just as GMC can convert truck credits to (fewer) car credits in order to sell them to Ferrari, GMC can also convert truck credits to car credits for Buick. GMC and Buick happen to be the same company, but GMC could just as easily trade those credits to a different company, maybe Ford or Volkswagen.
Again, the full details are in the actual rule linked above, but the summary is that car, light truck, medium truck, and heavy truck are computed completely separate, like separate companies. There is no averaging between cars and trucks.
> Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks.
You know why? Cars have stricter fuel-efficiency standards than light trucks. That makes sense. However it creates the perverse incentive that in order to meet fuel efficiency standards, manufacturers need to make bigger, heavier, less-efficient vehicles - trucks.
For those of us who don't know enough to really understand it, we can think of it like a cat.
You pull the cat's tail on one end, the cat meows on the other end. Quantum entanglement is exactly like that. Except there is no cat.
(The above is an old description of radio, often attributed to Einstein. Doesn't sound like Einstein's sense of humor, though.)
My kid doesn't HAVE a browser. She has several games and puzzles, a piano app for playing music, PBS Kids, YouTube kids, and a couple other apps.
Before she was born, I thought I'd never let her watch anything unless I was watching with her. After she was born, I discovered that parents have to poop sometimes. And cook. And wash the dishes. And shower. I actually can't be staring at her and her play things 24/7, so PBS Kids, YouTube Kids, etc are very helpful - I can poop, knowing that Daniel Tiger isn't going to do anything crazy.
Did you not read the subject line before replying?
Yes, Ford is over 100 years old. The claim was that Tesla has beaten Ford. Which is ridiculous. The weather affects Ford more than Tesla does. In 100 years, Tesla might matter in the auto industry. Today, Tesla is mostly a pyramid scheme.
My post was missing a word. If Tesla grows by 20% per year, every single year, then in 50 years they'll be - still far smaller than Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler, etc. That's how the math comes out. It's like comparing my YouTube channel to NBC or Discovery Networks.
In 100 years, they could be one of the top automakers, if they have strong growth every single year and never make a mistake.
Let's look at those numbers a bit differently. Tesla investors hope that Tesla grows, of course. If Tesla does extremely well and increases sales by 20% every single year, in 50 they'll be - still not one of the top 5 automakers.
A small but significant fact update: he was selling the discs to refurbishers. He got the idea while refurbishing systems he sold, and thought that other refurbishers might buy discs from him.
Seems like a small difference, but it makes all of this incorrect: -- Upon (legally) taking ownership of the computer by buying it used, he was in possession of the computer (he didn't, and wasn't) with the license. It was during that time he downloaded the restore discs.
When he goes to sell that computer to someone else (he sold the Windows discs, in bulk, not computers), it is only then he no longer has possession of the computer with the license. Since the restore disc went with the computer --
> Going by your idiotic ignorance epidemiology is not science.
No, going by what I say, epidemiology is the science that studies epidemics that have happened. Going by THEIR assertion, epidemiology starts by creating an epidemic, in order to study it.
It is the people fighting this who claim you can't do a study without "intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants". I say you can study an epidemic without creating one, and you can document how you did your study.
> First, many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants
Bull. Unless the original study that the EPA is using "intentionally and unethically exposed people and the environment to harmful contaminants", repeating the study won't do so. Do the authors claim that the EPA is funding and using studies that intentionally harm people?
What actually happens is someone studies the results of an oil spill or drug use or whatever, first gathering data. Then they massage the data in various ways, compensating for this and that. Then reach conclusions. (Or, reach conclusions and then message the data to match). The study, what needs to be reproducible, is the methodology of gathering and adjusting the data. What we have now is "we've concluded that an oil spill and smoking pot kill a bunch of people. We're not telling you how we came to that conclusion". Making the data and methodology available would mean publishing "we interviewed 100 heavy pot smokers who live within 10 miles of the beach and asked them if they think they are going to die. 70% of pot smokers within 10 miles of the beach said they will die". Other scientists could then point to problems with that methodology, could do their own analysis of the data, or repeat the study, taking their own survey.
What you said may be a better argument than "what I was selling can't be sold, it has no value". Obviously it has some value, he has thousands of copies made to sell.
Your argument is essentially "because Microsoft sold a license to use an existing copy, they can no longer control companies making and selling copies", right?
Of course it's called COPY right. From the beginning Microsoft has the sole right to make and sell copies. More questionable, perhaps, is to what extent Microsoft has the right to issue licenses. The license may have no value, because in general you can do what you want with stuff you buy. While Microsoft has the sole right to make and Al copies, it's less clear that they have any right to control what happens with those copies after the sale, to issue licenses of any kind.
Partly the efficiency is having the first round not be in court, so the *appeals court* received all the records, and the decision, from the review board. All that process of gathering and presenting the facts and arguments is done through the board.
Secondly, it goes to an appeals court, not a trial court. The appeals court generally doesn't decide who is right, they decide whether the previous tribunal clearly screwed up. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. The question before an appeals court is "could the previous tribunal reasonably and properly come to that decision", not whether they SHOULD come to that decision.
What that means is you can't argue your case over, you have to articulate what the original tribunal did wrong.
> He supports DACA, TPP, backed down on health care & H1-Bs He cancelled DACA, then the court said he can't. In January, days after he was inaugurated, he pulled the US out of TPP. In February he tightened the rules on H1-B and recently signed an executive order intending to tighten them further. Is it opposite day where you live?
> See here. Your narrative is incorrect.
If you look there, you'll see that the normal/reasonable/traditional candidates got 25%, 14%, and 11%. So 50% wanted one of the traditional candidates, and 45% wanted Trump, the weirdo. A LOT of Republicans were #nevertrump, but in our system we don't vote AGAINST someone, we pick a specific person to vote FOR.
Slashdot Mirror
The US spends more on education than most developed countries, much more in many cases, and gets worse results. Over the last 20 years, we've thrown more money at schools and got worse results. More money isn't improving outcomes.
Perhaps we should look at the countries that get better results and see what they are doing differently. They're spending less money than the US, not more.
I haven't done a rigorous study, but I have noticed that our schools seem to spend a LOT of time (aka money) on non-academic things, things that are somewhat political like "Mexican heritage month". Kids in the US spend 180 days in school. When three or four months of that are spent on teaching diversity, tolerance, environmental awareness, etc, that's all time not spent on math, reading, science etc. That must have an impact.
You bring up a good point. There is also an interesting counter-point, leading to need to balance the two.
Certainly a major deficiency in one area can override one's excellence in another. If an amazing technician has no ability at all to communicate with other people, he'll do little good. On the other hand, major advances, and perhaps the majority of overall good, are done by specialists, people good at one thing.
I don't have the people skills of a good salesman, and it would be a waste for me spend time developing that, because major companies HAVE sales people, who are not the development engineers. It is wise to practice getting really good at what YOU do, rather than trying to achieve mediocracy in what everyone else does. So there is a balance there - improve your weak points - until they are no longer a major hindrance to using your strong points. I suck at graphic design, and that's perfectly okay - the graphic designers handle that, and more affordably than it would cost to have me doing graphic design.
Some "weak points" are also an alternative term for strong points. Every US president has been profoundly arrogant. They actually believed that not only they SHOULD be elected President, but that most people would see that, everyone would agree that they should be President of the United States. How arrogant is that! Tame your arrogance, if it's a problem, but don't work TOO hard at becoming exactly average in every way, I'd say.
Good tips. If you're actively making your team and your boss succeed and look good, most people will leave you alone and let you do that.
I've also learned that precedents are established quickly. Whatever you want to establish about relationships at work, establish it early. Also however you want to be seen, be thought of, put that out there early.
Some people introduce themselves and quickly show "I'm a friendly guy and you'll like me", others want to show themselves to be tough or whatever. For me, I like to establish "technical credibility", I show that I know what I'm talking about, when I speak about technical issues it makes sense to listen to what I'm saying. (Part of that is keeping my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about, or asking questions rather than making assumptions).
Here's another tip I just learned - proofread what you write. :)
My first tip was supposed to be "make friends in the industry", not "male friends". Indeed when it comes to networking and friendships, in average females are probably statistically more open to relating than males are.
I can tell you a few things that have worked for me. I'll go in chronological order rather than priority order.
Male friends in the industry you want to be in. Referrals are a major way people get jobs.
Look at the job listings for jobs you'd like to have and see which skills a lot of companies want, but you're missing. For me that's Java. A lot companies list Java skills and I'm not particularly good with Java. Then consider learning the skills you lack, the ones a lot of job postings are looking for.
Certifications, posted on your LinkedIn, let recruiters find you when they want someone with your skills. Some people will point out that certifications don't prove skill, people can cheat. But certifications CLAIM a certain skill level. When I list "Cisco CCNA" on my resume, I'm claiming a very specific level of networking knowledge, which can be confirmed in an interview. People also point out that (entry-level) certifications don't prove expert-level knowledge. Duh. Entry-level certifications show entry-level knowledge. Advanced certifications like CCIE show expert knowledge. But the point is, certificates are clear, industry standard ways that recruiters actually use to find candidates that match.
With those three steps done, you should have multiple requests for interviews. You have the right skills, and recruiters looking for those skills find you. So now what about the boss that makes you hate showing up for work?
Plan how you can screen the company and interview the boss. I see a lot of job ads for Wells Fargo because they are trying to hire people with my skills in my city. But we know from the news that Wells Fargo corporate culture is to lie, cheat, and steal to make monthly targets. I won't be applying at Wells Fargo. In interviews, I try to ask questions that give me some insight into the boss and the company. I can afford to walk away to the extent I've done the other steps, acquiring skills that are in-demand and marketing myself.
I bet other people reading this have some good tips of their own. Who has one to share?
You quoted a lot. Is there one part exactly do you have in mind? The thesis of my post is of course "constant learning, on purpose, makes you better"
> you take this attitude towards other people, people will not ask your for help. At the same time, you'll be also be not able to ask for their help.
Are you saying that trying to learn means you can't ask for help, or was there something more specific? For me, trying to learn means asking.
Trying to learn, I've had the opportunity to ask for help from people like Neil Brown, ESR, Florian Weimer, Randal Schwartz, and Ralf Engelschall. I've certainly learned from them, and gotten good help.
I ask because the one thing I enjoy more than designing programs and learning to do that better I'd helping OTHER people learn to do better software. I've been slowly creating a position for myself where hopefully I spend at least half my time doing that. Currently, I spend about 35% of my time helping other programmers, answering questions or whatever. Want to do more of that.
I really enjoyed something that happened the other day. The lead architect asked our team "what is this function for? @Ray this looks like your code". He could tell it was mine because it used a certain more advanced coding technique that makes the code easier to read and understand (thereby reducing bugs). The cool thing is, had he looked it the commit, he's have seen another programmer's name on it. It was done by a programmer who has been pushed to spend more time on paperwork, because he's better at paperwork than code. But he and I have been spending a lot of time working together, with him asking me questions throughout the day. "My" techniques for clearer, less bug-prone software are now showing up in code written by junior members of the team, because they come ask me, and we learn together. I think that's awesome.
Of course they are important. I wouldn't have done those things if they weren't important!
I frequently have friends say things like "I love baking. I can't get enough of baking. I'm going to open a bakery.". I ask them "do you love dealing with taxes, every month? Do you love contract law? Employment law? Marketing? Accounting?" If you LOVE baking, the smart thing to do is to spend your time baking. Running a start-up business, you're not going to do much baking.
If you love marketing, employment law, taxes, etc, then start your own business. If you love writing software, and you're really good at it, then someone will pay you six figures to do what you love.
Of course, the ideal for a really good programmer is to partner with young Bill Gates on a new business, and you do the software while he does the business. That doesn't happen often, though.
> The people can do both are smart enough to build their own company and compete with you.
Been there, done that. Learned a few lessons. Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring, managing people, corporate strategy, staying up on the competition, figuring out tax changes each year and getting taxes filed six times each year, the various state and local requirements, legal changes, contract hassles, etc, while hoping the company makes money this month so they can take a paycheck and lay their rent.
I learned that I'm good at creating software systems and I enjoy it. I don't enjoy all-nighters, partners being dickheads trying to pull out of a contract, or any of a thousand other things related to running a start-up business. I really enjoy a consistent, six-figure compensation package too.
That seems about right to me.
I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good programmer and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things I'm not good at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)
I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that for twenty years.
I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years. They never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was wrong 20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days of improvement.
Here is the full rule (1500 pages) for 2012-2016 if you'd like to read it, but I'll summarize a bit for you.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfi...
> fleet-wide averages, without as much exception for "trucks."
There are two (or more) completely separate fleets. Cars, light trucks, medium trucks (and busses), heavy trucks, motorcycles. There is no "exception", the two groups are computed entirely separately, based on entirely different MPG standards and different average lifetime miles.
For CAFE purposes, each company is essentially split into two companies - a truck company and a car company. (Also motorcycles and large trucks are computed entirely separate, as if they were different companies). You can read the full details in the EPA rules above.
So first the company does its cars. The first step on calculating the car standard is to find the average size (footprint) of the company's cars. I'll directly quote the EPA rule on this rather than trying to explain it in my own words:
--
EPAâ(TM)s final standards, like the standards NHTSA
promulgated in March 2009 for MY 2011, are expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint. Footprint is one measure of vehicle size, and is
determined by multiplying the vehicleâ(TM)s wheelbase by the vehicleâ(TM)s average track width.
--
After finding the footprint, you look at the table (section 3, I think) that gives the formula for your range. Inputting the average footprint, the formula tells what the average fuel economy needs to be, in GALLONS PER MILE.
It's gallons per mile because a vehicle that gets 1MPG burns twice as much gas as one that gets 2MPG, but a vehicle that gets 99MPG is almost the same as one that gets 100MPG.
Subtract your company's ACTUAL average GPM for cars from the standard to get the amount of credit or debit. If the company is more efficient than required, it can either save those credits for next year, or sell the credits to another car company. Similarly, if this year's sales aren't efficient enough, the company can either use credits it earned in an earlier year, or buy credits from a more efficient company. (Credit brokers are allowed, but cannot actually own the credits, only bank them).
Once your done with the cars, you go through the same procedure, separately, for your motorcycles, then again completely separately for light trucks, etc.
I mentioned that a company that doesn't meet its target can buy credits from a company that the target. What Mack beats their heavy truck target, while BMW needs to buy credits for their cars? Mack has truck credits to sell, BMW wants to buy car credits. The public doesn't care whether a gallon of gas is burned in a motorcycle or a bus, they only care how much as is burned, so before trading companies can apply a formula to convert light truck credits to car credits, or car credits to medium truck credits or whatever. (It's not one-for-one, different kinds of credits are "worth" different amounts). Note that it may be Volvo's truck credits offsetting Ferrari's car debit. The Corporate in CAFE doesn't matter once you start trading different kinds of credits.
Just as GMC can convert truck credits to (fewer) car credits in order to sell them to Ferrari, GMC can also convert truck credits to car credits for Buick. GMC and Buick happen to be the same company, but GMC could just as easily trade those credits to a different company, maybe Ford or Volkswagen.
Again, the full details are in the actual rule linked above, but the summary is that car, light truck, medium truck, and heavy truck are computed completely separate, like separate companies. There is no averaging between cars and trucks.
> Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks.
You know why? Cars have stricter fuel-efficiency standards than light trucks. That makes sense. However it creates the perverse incentive that in order to meet fuel efficiency standards, manufacturers need to make bigger, heavier, less-efficient vehicles - trucks.
For those of us who don't know enough to really understand it, we can think of it like a cat.
You pull the cat's tail on one end, the cat meows on the other end. Quantum entanglement is exactly like that. Except there is no cat.
(The above is an old description of radio, often attributed to Einstein. Doesn't sound like Einstein's sense of humor, though.)
My kid doesn't HAVE a browser. She has several games and puzzles, a piano app for playing music, PBS Kids, YouTube kids, and a couple other apps.
Before she was born, I thought I'd never let her watch anything unless I was watching with her. After she was born, I discovered that parents have to poop sometimes. And cook. And wash the dishes. And shower. I actually can't be staring at her and her play things 24/7, so PBS Kids, YouTube Kids, etc are very helpful - I can poop, knowing that Daniel Tiger isn't going to do anything crazy.
Did you not read the subject line before replying?
Yes, Ford is over 100 years old. The claim was that Tesla has beaten Ford. Which is ridiculous. The weather affects Ford more than Tesla does. In 100 years, Tesla might matter in the auto industry. Today, Tesla is mostly a pyramid scheme.
You're right, of course. The last thing I did before falling asleep last night was post that. Apparently part of my brain was already asleep.
20% growth each year for 20 years would get them into the top 10 automakers, if none of the other companies grew.
My post was missing a word. If Tesla grows by 20% per year, every single year, then in 50 years they'll be - still far smaller than Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler, etc. That's how the math comes out. It's like comparing my YouTube channel to NBC or Discovery Networks.
In 100 years, they could be one of the top automakers, if they have strong growth every single year and never make a mistake.
Let's look at those numbers a bit differently. Tesla investors hope that Tesla grows, of course. If Tesla does extremely well and increases sales by 20% every single year, in 50 they'll be - still not one of the top 5 automakers.
Kinda like McDonald's cedes the burger business to Bob'z Burgerz and Auto Parts, in Kinnipequid, Maine?
Ford sold about 7 million units last year.
Renault sold about 10 million, Honda 5 million, GM 10 million, Volkswagen 11 million, Toyota 11 million.
Tesla sold about 100,000. If they manage to increase sales by 100 times, they'll be a real car company.
A small but significant fact update: he was selling the discs to refurbishers. He got the idea while refurbishing systems he sold, and thought that other refurbishers might buy discs from him.
Seems like a small difference, but it makes all of this incorrect:
--
Upon (legally) taking ownership of the computer by buying it used, he was in possession of the computer (he didn't, and wasn't) with the license. It was during that time he downloaded the restore discs.
When he goes to sell that computer to someone else (he sold the Windows discs, in bulk, not computers), it is only then he no longer has possession of the computer with the license.
Since the restore disc went with the computer
--
> Going by your idiotic ignorance epidemiology is not science.
No, going by what I say, epidemiology is the science that studies epidemics that have happened. Going by THEIR assertion, epidemiology starts by creating an epidemic, in order to study it.
It is the people fighting this who claim you can't do a study without "intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants". I say you can study an epidemic without creating one, and you can document how you did your study.
> First, many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and
unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants
Bull.
Unless the original study that the EPA is using "intentionally and unethically exposed people and the environment to harmful contaminants", repeating the study won't do so. Do the authors claim that the EPA is funding and using studies that intentionally harm people?
What actually happens is someone studies the results of an oil spill or drug use or whatever, first gathering data. Then they massage the data in various ways, compensating for this and that. Then reach conclusions. (Or, reach conclusions and then message the data to match). The study, what needs to be reproducible, is the methodology of gathering and adjusting the data. What we have now is "we've concluded that an oil spill and smoking pot kill a bunch of people. We're not telling you how we came to that conclusion". Making the data and methodology available would mean publishing "we interviewed 100 heavy pot smokers who live within 10 miles of the beach and asked them if they think they are going to die. 70% of pot smokers within 10 miles of the beach said they will die". Other scientists could then point to problems with that methodology, could do their own analysis of the data, or repeat the study, taking their own survey.
What you said may be a better argument than "what I was selling can't be sold, it has no value". Obviously it has some value, he has thousands of copies made to sell.
Your argument is essentially "because Microsoft sold a license to use an existing copy, they can no longer control companies making and selling copies", right?
Of course it's called COPY right. From the beginning Microsoft has the sole right to make and sell copies. More questionable, perhaps, is to what extent Microsoft has the right to issue licenses. The license may have no value, because in general you can do what you want with stuff you buy. While Microsoft has the sole right to make and Al copies, it's less clear that they have any right to control what happens with those copies after the sale, to issue licenses of any kind.
He produced a bunch of disks to sell.
Then argued in court that they had no value.
I dislike Microsoft as much as anyone, but the defendant in this case contradicts himself.
Microsoft's argument is that only they have the right to sell Windows disks, he did not.
Partly the efficiency is having the first round not be in court, so the *appeals court* received all the records, and the decision, from the review board. All that process of gathering and presenting the facts and arguments is done through the board.
Secondly, it goes to an appeals court, not a trial court. The appeals court generally doesn't decide who is right, they decide whether the previous tribunal clearly screwed up. The difference may be subtle, but it's important. The question before an appeals court is "could the previous tribunal reasonably and properly come to that decision", not whether they SHOULD come to that decision.
What that means is you can't argue your case over, you have to articulate what the original tribunal did wrong.
> He supports DACA, TPP, backed down on health care & H1-Bs
He cancelled DACA, then the court said he can't. In January, days after he was inaugurated, he pulled the US out of TPP. In February he tightened the rules on H1-B and recently signed an executive order intending to tighten them further. Is it opposite day where you live?
> See here. Your narrative is incorrect.
If you look there, you'll see that the normal/reasonable/traditional candidates got 25%, 14%, and 11%. So 50% wanted one of the traditional candidates, and 45% wanted Trump, the weirdo. A LOT of Republicans were #nevertrump, but in our system we don't vote AGAINST someone, we pick a specific person to vote FOR.