Monopolies like the local ISPs can only exist if they were subsidized, have a captive market, or are losing money. If they are making money, then no. You (or one of the millions of other people out there) can offer competition in terms of better value / more open approach. Monopolies exist because of government regulation, not despite it.
This really, really, REALLY doesn't matter. The cat is out of the bag. If Australians won't rise up against their tyrannous government, they can have SKUs with all of our protections ripped out. But there will be many dead men turning over in their graves before the US succumbs to such a law. We've seen this encroachment before, and it has never passed.
This is how they turned out some of the oil fires in Kuwait after Gulf War One. They packed barrels full of C4 and suffocated the fires out by displacing the oil as fuel with explosives to choke off the fire.
Forest fires have much more spread, so you would need something like a MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Blast) or several of them strategically aimed and timed to detonate at the same time around the fire to quench it.
I thought a better solution would be to basically bulldoze the hills that are on fire with mountain-mover equipment. The large bucket in front of a huge tracked vehicle would smash the combustibles under the ground and stop the fire.
But it's not entirely true. Last year, Apple came out with FaceID, a phone that has a unique screen shape, a phone with no home button that normalized gestures as the primary input method, and they raised the bar on prices and proved that people would pay for more features in the iPhoneX.
Oh, and it had more cameras, a faster CPU, a better battery, and all the rest of the usual stuff. And that was the most recent keynote. People are upgrading, which is why in its last earnings report, Apple posted record sales for the quarter, to the tune of 40+ million sales of iPhone, the new one (X) being the most popular.
Just because Samsung is in a me-too funk with the rest of the android ecosystem, doesn't mean the industry is done innovating. Evidence points out that Apple certainly isn't. Their last keynote was a smashing success.
They are. The teardowns industry experts executed on their products indicate roughly 30% margin. Citation.
They are just using the Amazon model of spending on new products and services, investing their capital into growth vs returns. Thats a long-term return strategy and one I think wall street will have to get used to. There is a difference between companies like Sears who cost-cut and sell business units in order to try and remain solvent, and ones like Tesla who throw everything they have in order to deliver the next breakthrough product like the fastest accelerating car on earth, or the first really usable electric Semi-Truck, or win the race to Level5 autonomous driving. Amazon did the same thing when it invested in AWS, Prime Streaming, Alexa, and Kindle. Some of their investments didn't pan out, like Fire Phone and Tablet, but most do. They are smart guys. This is Tesla's approach. Solar Tiles, Battery packs for home, business, infrastructure, cars, suvs, trucks, sports cars, and the underlying platform (autonomous driving, supercharger network).
Given that the batteries are expensive, I'm sure there are significant capital costs. I doubt its more than the cost of the Diesel they are importing. 95 million liters are no joke.
Yes. That's the problem. The gains are concentrated in the large media companies, who have the incentive and the means to enforce their copyright. The losses are dispersed across 330 million consumers and a millions of small artists who aren't incentivized enough to push back.
The problem is that it generates revenue to extend copyrights. You make more money if people have to pay money for them, and you know how much you will make roughly since the prior years give you a sense of popularity. So, you use some of those funds to lobby Congress to give you more years of revenue generation.
On the other side, limiting the copyright saves you money, but no one actually realizes how much they save because the work was in the public domain. They don't "feel the savings". So they don't feel incentivized to pay to lobby Congress to limit copyright.
This is the case of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil".
So if a company is in the business of building IP, and it sees the risks of having that IP stolen to China for lower cost competition, should the company be afforded the right to discriminate against Chinese?
I do not own any Tesla stock, nor are my comments paid for in any way. Don't come here playing identity politics with me. Who I am doesn't matter. What I am saying matters. Either my ideas are good or bad. If you want to refute them, refute them. But you do not know me, you know nothing about me. You are just a little retard who wont even sign up for an account here, little coward, little bitch.
Now, for my argument:
Elon is running two VERY VERY technical companies with insane technical achievement trajectories. One of his organizations simultaneously landed two rockets barely two years after he proved dip-shits like you wrong and pulled it off when everyone insisted it couldn't be done. This, when they had only had rocketry for less than a decade. They learned very fast. And no, they actually built their own engine, design to production. They didn't buy engines from the russians and slap a fuel tank on it. Space-X actually did the ground work and beat everyone at their own game. Musk is a brilliant leader, and his technical prowess clearly demonstrates his ability to lead a team to design a chip.
Besides, I didn't suggest Must is single-handedly designing a CPU or a GPU, I said Tesla building an ASIC that caters to their self-driving neural network gives them competitive advantage. I said Tesla certainly has the engineering prowess and capital to make it happen. Much, much smaller companies have built their own silicon designs.
If this was the FDA with a new drug or medical procedure it would be off the market so fast but noooo it is ELON MUSK THE PEDOPHILE DETECTOR!!!! Anything he says or does it great even if it kills people. Such crony capitalist bullshit.
Tesla has invented the fpga? Really? Why is,this exciting and ground breaking?
They do not own a fab or have the cpu designers that Intel, amd and invidea have.
This is just more Musk nonsense.
In 3-4 years, if tesla still exists, we will hear how the new ai chip is almost here. Just put down your non refundable deposit for the upgrade when you buy your car which will also be late and Musk will give you themupgrade 5 years later.... long after every other car maker has already perfected level 5 self driving vehicles and sells them at a million a week.
Andmtheir cars wont murder people either.
Yeah, right. FPGA is the technology they are espousing here. You are right on the button. I wish I was as insightful as you are./sarcasm
They are investing in new applications of technology. They are doing their data collecting, determination of the best solution, and spending the capital required to further their lead. They don't have a FAB? Excellent! You only want a dedicated FAB when the quantities required are in the hundreds of millions. Why would they want a FAB? Apple designs the A(n) chips and uses them in millions and millions of phones, and still doesn't need a FAB. Not having a FAB is a "no shit, sherlock" business decision when your target market is maybe 150,000 cars a year, at best. Good to know if you were ever in Elon's position, you wouldn't know your ass from your face and drive your business into the ground trying to make whatever you think a FAB is for whatever you think a FAB does.
Ok, next argument. They don't have the CPU designers that Intel, AMD, and N-Vidia have? Great. They aren't designing a CPU. They are designing a specific chip that at best could be described as an ASIC to handle the tasks related to the neural network processing they determined would be the best solution to processing the various data they have, based on the largest, most autonomous vehicle fleet traveling on public roadways to date. Completely different set of skills needed for such a chip, and all their data collection will help them really thread that needle.
The rest of your comment is just a pile of horse shit. Tesla is the furthest up the "magic quadrant" if Gardner made a study of current AI systems, by far. Almost every publication and review of various self-driving systems and competitive tests have proven as much. They are doubling down on that strategy to make it harder and harder for their competitors to catch up, as they race to level-5 driving. Oh, and of course they will be around in 3-4 years. Probably at double the current valuation. Running out of cash (which they don't think they will based on end-of-year profitability), and having no value are two VASTLY different things.
Google makes google maps. They have the right to name it whatever they want on their platform. Don't like it? Use something else. Don't like others using it? Ask them to use something else. When they tell you to get a life? That's freedom.
This is actually a brilliant play. If they roll their own, it will be a differentiator his competitors wont be able to catch up with him on. They will do it themselves, be better at it through investment and expertise, having learned more by having billions of miles driven by their customers to teach their back-end system how to act. They will be market leading in driverless vehicles.
It was either going to be "Elon's folly: why his chips wont work and he will become homeless trying to make them", or "Elon Musk set to disrupt the modern world as we know it with new Super-Computer on a chip stroke of genius".
What I can say is, the reason Tesla will be the biggest innovator and market leader in their field is simple. People are passionate about it. Good or bad, everyone has a strong opinion. Tesla these days reminds me of the "Pray" cover WiReD published about Apple before the second coming of Steve Jobs. Like apple, they were innovating even while close to bankrupt, making moves to right the company, and making strategic acquisitions and bold moves no one else had done before. Remember the first iMac? Remember the "only 4 products" pitch? Everyone felt very passionate about Apple. You either loved or hated them. Why? Because they really did do things differently (pardon the cliche).
Whatever you say about Apple, they are the dominant market leader in terms of profitability, defining standards, and defining what it means to be in technology. They are the "me" to everyone else's "me too". If you want to know how smart phones work, or what features they will have, look to Apple (or Apple rumors).
Tesla will eventually be that for cars. Everyone will move closer to their aesthetic to gain from the aerodynamics they have figured out. Everyone will move to their sales model (no middle-men dealerships). Everyone will move to their large touchscreen interface. Everyone will move to their feature/functionality set. They are going to be the innovators. Why? Because everyone talks about them. When was the last time there was a story on here about Ford's software, or the latest F150 designs. Ford and the like are the Nokia phones of the previous decade. Mercedes is Blackberry. Watch another industry become reinvented in the next 10 years.
This is one of those non-story stories, like that stupid "doomsday clock at midnight" things. Just some stupid number crunching, nothing to see here.
Earth is a recycling planet. It will never not be a recycling planet. One guy once did a calculation for the biomass of all the dinosaurs, times the millions of years the dinosaurs have ever existed, times the water usage of a typical large reptile we see today, divided by all the water on earth. He determined that dinosaurs drank and pissed out all the water on earth 14 times during a 250 million year reign on earth. Yet look! We still have water.
Earth will never run out of resources. Why? Supply and demand. We will always make more when more is in demand. That's free market economics for you. Today, we have more wood than we consume. If that changes, it will be profitable to plant trees and grow more wood. There are trees that take 100 years to come to market. Those trees are worth planting, even if the farmer doesnt realize his crop. Why? Because the tree at 10 years old is worth more than the tree at 0 years old.
If we need more water than all the rain on earth, we will desalinate. Too expensive? We will innovate. Same thing goes for just about every natural resource. If you think there are things we can't innovate around and will perish without, I present to you the miracle of intelligence, the ingenuity of our species, and the enduring spirit of mankind. We don't need to worry and save. If it gets to a point that rarity will cause a shortage, prices will adjust and we will slow down our consumption when the market tells us to. The market will also signal that it is time for new entrants, or innovation to make more, make alternatives, or improve efficiency. That's what R&D is for. Why don't we build more coal plants? Because solar is getting cheap, and democratizing energy production. That's what the market does.
San Francisco already spends over $40k per homeless person per year. Citation (There are roughly 6,000 homeless people in SF).
If Govirnment spending would have fixed the problem, certainly twice the poverty line per homeless person is sufficient. Those are just city dollars. That doesn't include the county, the state, or the federal government programs and services these guys have access to.
We know most of it is spent on cronyism, contracts to businesses their friends own, and misappropriation. Otherwise, you could just cut checks and they could rent apartments 3 or 4 to a housing unit, literally anywhere else in the country.
Given our current embarrassment we call a support system, I'd rather just cut all of these programs, and all of the entitlements, all of them, and just start a minimum income via a negative income tax.
Democrats won't have that. They want the pork-barrel buffet of these "entitlements" so they can rip it off. For shame.
No, that's not why the electoral college was installed.
The electoral college was installed because the slave-holding states wanted their slaves to weigh in on the elections of the day without actually casting a vote. The electors were numbered such that 3/5ths of slaves were counted towards population for purposes of representation.
Everything in law at the end of the day is enforced at the end of a gun. If you do not comply with law, you are punished. If you resist, you are killed. Mod as troll all you want, it doesn't change anything.
By the way, I really can not believe that in 2018 we are having a real discussion about weather the freedom to think and speak what you believe in is up for debate! Wasn't this settled in like the 1790s? Thats why we have a first amendment!
C'mon. Really?! IF you really want someone else to decide for you. Follow that person. But please, don't try to force the rest of us to by codifying it into law!?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it? How do they prevent an application from being decompiled? I've never heard of such a thing.
Monopolies like the local ISPs can only exist if they were subsidized, have a captive market, or are losing money. If they are making money, then no. You (or one of the millions of other people out there) can offer competition in terms of better value / more open approach. Monopolies exist because of government regulation, not despite it.
This really, really, REALLY doesn't matter. The cat is out of the bag. If Australians won't rise up against their tyrannous government, they can have SKUs with all of our protections ripped out. But there will be many dead men turning over in their graves before the US succumbs to such a law. We've seen this encroachment before, and it has never passed.
Why not? California does give the US Federal Government more in taxes than any other state, by a lot!
This is how they turned out some of the oil fires in Kuwait after Gulf War One. They packed barrels full of C4 and suffocated the fires out by displacing the oil as fuel with explosives to choke off the fire.
Forest fires have much more spread, so you would need something like a MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Blast) or several of them strategically aimed and timed to detonate at the same time around the fire to quench it.
I thought a better solution would be to basically bulldoze the hills that are on fire with mountain-mover equipment. The large bucket in front of a huge tracked vehicle would smash the combustibles under the ground and stop the fire.
Time for some entertainment: Link to Hitler Spoof .
But it's not entirely true. Last year, Apple came out with FaceID, a phone that has a unique screen shape, a phone with no home button that normalized gestures as the primary input method, and they raised the bar on prices and proved that people would pay for more features in the iPhoneX.
Oh, and it had more cameras, a faster CPU, a better battery, and all the rest of the usual stuff. And that was the most recent keynote. People are upgrading, which is why in its last earnings report, Apple posted record sales for the quarter, to the tune of 40+ million sales of iPhone, the new one (X) being the most popular.
Just because Samsung is in a me-too funk with the rest of the android ecosystem, doesn't mean the industry is done innovating. Evidence points out that Apple certainly isn't. Their last keynote was a smashing success.
They are. The teardowns industry experts executed on their products indicate roughly 30% margin. Citation.
They are just using the Amazon model of spending on new products and services, investing their capital into growth vs returns. Thats a long-term return strategy and one I think wall street will have to get used to. There is a difference between companies like Sears who cost-cut and sell business units in order to try and remain solvent, and ones like Tesla who throw everything they have in order to deliver the next breakthrough product like the fastest accelerating car on earth, or the first really usable electric Semi-Truck, or win the race to Level5 autonomous driving. Amazon did the same thing when it invested in AWS, Prime Streaming, Alexa, and Kindle. Some of their investments didn't pan out, like Fire Phone and Tablet, but most do. They are smart guys. This is Tesla's approach. Solar Tiles, Battery packs for home, business, infrastructure, cars, suvs, trucks, sports cars, and the underlying platform (autonomous driving, supercharger network).
Given that the batteries are expensive, I'm sure there are significant capital costs. I doubt its more than the cost of the Diesel they are importing. 95 million liters are no joke.
It will be disconnected from the public internet.
No. Tesla doesnt sell user data to advertisers, nor do they place ads on any of their platforms.
Glad I could clear that up for you
Yes. That's the problem. The gains are concentrated in the large media companies, who have the incentive and the means to enforce their copyright. The losses are dispersed across 330 million consumers and a millions of small artists who aren't incentivized enough to push back.
The problem is that it generates revenue to extend copyrights. You make more money if people have to pay money for them, and you know how much you will make roughly since the prior years give you a sense of popularity. So, you use some of those funds to lobby Congress to give you more years of revenue generation.
On the other side, limiting the copyright saves you money, but no one actually realizes how much they save because the work was in the public domain. They don't "feel the savings". So they don't feel incentivized to pay to lobby Congress to limit copyright.
This is the case of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil".
So if a company is in the business of building IP, and it sees the risks of having that IP stolen to China for lower cost competition, should the company be afforded the right to discriminate against Chinese?
I do not own any Tesla stock, nor are my comments paid for in any way. Don't come here playing identity politics with me. Who I am doesn't matter. What I am saying matters. Either my ideas are good or bad. If you want to refute them, refute them. But you do not know me, you know nothing about me. You are just a little retard who wont even sign up for an account here, little coward, little bitch.
Now, for my argument:
Elon is running two VERY VERY technical companies with insane technical achievement trajectories. One of his organizations simultaneously landed two rockets barely two years after he proved dip-shits like you wrong and pulled it off when everyone insisted it couldn't be done. This, when they had only had rocketry for less than a decade. They learned very fast. And no, they actually built their own engine, design to production. They didn't buy engines from the russians and slap a fuel tank on it. Space-X actually did the ground work and beat everyone at their own game. Musk is a brilliant leader, and his technical prowess clearly demonstrates his ability to lead a team to design a chip.
Besides, I didn't suggest Must is single-handedly designing a CPU or a GPU, I said Tesla building an ASIC that caters to their self-driving neural network gives them competitive advantage. I said Tesla certainly has the engineering prowess and capital to make it happen. Much, much smaller companies have built their own silicon designs.
If this was the FDA with a new drug or medical procedure it would be off the market so fast but noooo it is ELON MUSK THE PEDOPHILE DETECTOR!!!! Anything he says or does it great even if it kills people. Such crony capitalist bullshit.
Yeah, I'm the biased one. Right.
Fuck off, retard.
Tesla has invented the fpga? Really? Why is,this exciting and ground breaking?
They do not own a fab or have the cpu designers that Intel, amd and invidea have.
This is just more Musk nonsense.
In 3-4 years, if tesla still exists, we will hear how the new ai chip is almost here. Just put down your non refundable deposit for the upgrade when you buy your car which will also be late and Musk will give you themupgrade 5 years later.... long after every other car maker has already perfected level 5 self driving vehicles and sells them at a million a week.
Andmtheir cars wont murder people either.
Yeah, right. FPGA is the technology they are espousing here. You are right on the button. I wish I was as insightful as you are. /sarcasm
They are investing in new applications of technology. They are doing their data collecting, determination of the best solution, and spending the capital required to further their lead. They don't have a FAB? Excellent! You only want a dedicated FAB when the quantities required are in the hundreds of millions. Why would they want a FAB? Apple designs the A(n) chips and uses them in millions and millions of phones, and still doesn't need a FAB. Not having a FAB is a "no shit, sherlock" business decision when your target market is maybe 150,000 cars a year, at best. Good to know if you were ever in Elon's position, you wouldn't know your ass from your face and drive your business into the ground trying to make whatever you think a FAB is for whatever you think a FAB does.
Ok, next argument. They don't have the CPU designers that Intel, AMD, and N-Vidia have? Great. They aren't designing a CPU. They are designing a specific chip that at best could be described as an ASIC to handle the tasks related to the neural network processing they determined would be the best solution to processing the various data they have, based on the largest, most autonomous vehicle fleet traveling on public roadways to date. Completely different set of skills needed for such a chip, and all their data collection will help them really thread that needle.
The rest of your comment is just a pile of horse shit. Tesla is the furthest up the "magic quadrant" if Gardner made a study of current AI systems, by far. Almost every publication and review of various self-driving systems and competitive tests have proven as much. They are doubling down on that strategy to make it harder and harder for their competitors to catch up, as they race to level-5 driving. Oh, and of course they will be around in 3-4 years. Probably at double the current valuation. Running out of cash (which they don't think they will based on end-of-year profitability), and having no value are two VASTLY different things.
Cars don't murder either. Vehicular manslaughter? Maybe. Murder implies premeditated intent.
Dumb-ass
Google makes google maps. They have the right to name it whatever they want on their platform. Don't like it? Use something else. Don't like others using it? Ask them to use something else. When they tell you to get a life? That's freedom.
This is actually a brilliant play. If they roll their own, it will be a differentiator his competitors wont be able to catch up with him on. They will do it themselves, be better at it through investment and expertise, having learned more by having billions of miles driven by their customers to teach their back-end system how to act. They will be market leading in driverless vehicles.
Guys that are serious about software, build their own hardware. - Alan Kay
It was either going to be "Elon's folly: why his chips wont work and he will become homeless trying to make them", or "Elon Musk set to disrupt the modern world as we know it with new Super-Computer on a chip stroke of genius".
What I can say is, the reason Tesla will be the biggest innovator and market leader in their field is simple. People are passionate about it. Good or bad, everyone has a strong opinion. Tesla these days reminds me of the "Pray" cover WiReD published about Apple before the second coming of Steve Jobs. Like apple, they were innovating even while close to bankrupt, making moves to right the company, and making strategic acquisitions and bold moves no one else had done before. Remember the first iMac? Remember the "only 4 products" pitch? Everyone felt very passionate about Apple. You either loved or hated them. Why? Because they really did do things differently (pardon the cliche).
Whatever you say about Apple, they are the dominant market leader in terms of profitability, defining standards, and defining what it means to be in technology. They are the "me" to everyone else's "me too". If you want to know how smart phones work, or what features they will have, look to Apple (or Apple rumors).
Tesla will eventually be that for cars. Everyone will move closer to their aesthetic to gain from the aerodynamics they have figured out. Everyone will move to their sales model (no middle-men dealerships). Everyone will move to their large touchscreen interface. Everyone will move to their feature/functionality set. They are going to be the innovators. Why? Because everyone talks about them. When was the last time there was a story on here about Ford's software, or the latest F150 designs. Ford and the like are the Nokia phones of the previous decade. Mercedes is Blackberry. Watch another industry become reinvented in the next 10 years.
This is one of those non-story stories, like that stupid "doomsday clock at midnight" things. Just some stupid number crunching, nothing to see here.
Earth is a recycling planet. It will never not be a recycling planet. One guy once did a calculation for the biomass of all the dinosaurs, times the millions of years the dinosaurs have ever existed, times the water usage of a typical large reptile we see today, divided by all the water on earth. He determined that dinosaurs drank and pissed out all the water on earth 14 times during a 250 million year reign on earth. Yet look! We still have water.
Earth will never run out of resources. Why? Supply and demand. We will always make more when more is in demand. That's free market economics for you. Today, we have more wood than we consume. If that changes, it will be profitable to plant trees and grow more wood. There are trees that take 100 years to come to market. Those trees are worth planting, even if the farmer doesnt realize his crop. Why? Because the tree at 10 years old is worth more than the tree at 0 years old.
If we need more water than all the rain on earth, we will desalinate. Too expensive? We will innovate. Same thing goes for just about every natural resource. If you think there are things we can't innovate around and will perish without, I present to you the miracle of intelligence, the ingenuity of our species, and the enduring spirit of mankind. We don't need to worry and save. If it gets to a point that rarity will cause a shortage, prices will adjust and we will slow down our consumption when the market tells us to. The market will also signal that it is time for new entrants, or innovation to make more, make alternatives, or improve efficiency. That's what R&D is for. Why don't we build more coal plants? Because solar is getting cheap, and democratizing energy production. That's what the market does.
Tell these bozos to buzz the fuck off.
San Francisco already spends over $40k per homeless person per year. Citation (There are roughly 6,000 homeless people in SF).
If Govirnment spending would have fixed the problem, certainly twice the poverty line per homeless person is sufficient. Those are just city dollars. That doesn't include the county, the state, or the federal government programs and services these guys have access to.
We know most of it is spent on cronyism, contracts to businesses their friends own, and misappropriation. Otherwise, you could just cut checks and they could rent apartments 3 or 4 to a housing unit, literally anywhere else in the country.
Given our current embarrassment we call a support system, I'd rather just cut all of these programs, and all of the entitlements, all of them, and just start a minimum income via a negative income tax.
Democrats won't have that. They want the pork-barrel buffet of these "entitlements" so they can rip it off. For shame.
No, that's not why the electoral college was installed.
The electoral college was installed because the slave-holding states wanted their slaves to weigh in on the elections of the day without actually casting a vote. The electors were numbered such that 3/5ths of slaves were counted towards population for purposes of representation.
Everything in law at the end of the day is enforced at the end of a gun. If you do not comply with law, you are punished. If you resist, you are killed. Mod as troll all you want, it doesn't change anything.
By the way, I really can not believe that in 2018 we are having a real discussion about weather the freedom to think and speak what you believe in is up for debate! Wasn't this settled in like the 1790s? Thats why we have a first amendment!
C'mon. Really?! IF you really want someone else to decide for you. Follow that person. But please, don't try to force the rest of us to by codifying it into law!?
Nothing you said is untrue. But at one point, there were:
The idiots who believed in evolution against the church!
The idiots who believed the mixing of blood with other races was a punishable thing!
The idiots who believed there really were witches in Salem!
The idiots who believed that prayer would heal you, and taking medicine was the work of the devil!
Do you really want to live in a world where authority to determine what is right or wrong is given to someone in power? Really?
Go to North Korea then. See what it's like.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it.