Animal life is doing quite well. The were observed impacts on some wildlife that got huge exposures (mostly birds, insects, and invertibrea) during and soon after the accident, but its been many years since any observable impacts have been seen. Animal life is healthy and thriving in all areas of the exclusion zone. And there has certainly been no shortage of studies, and we've had multiple generations of animals during this period.
Companies that grow organically have historically performed better, but there are exceptions. Musk is going to be able to mask a lot of financial issues by virtue of cult like investors whose eyes can be pointed to an idealistic goal.
And, once the company does, the cost savings will begin.
Cost will reduce, but from what? Initial production will be very expensive. IThe question is when will they cost significantly less than the competitors? f you include the cost of money, there is no way this factory can produce on a lower cost basis until it is near full capacity and selling the output. But if Musk "buys" a bunch of the initial production using his own capital (using them for solar storage), he can inflate the cost artficially, then claim the cost is reducing on future production runs. As long as he's got huge capital and investor allegiance, he'll be able to play the game.
Production at scale does inevitably reduce cost, but once you get to a certain point the gains become small. If Tesla oversized it they could find themselves in a world of hurt. Competitors with out all of that sunk capital could be in a better position to adapt to changes.
The recovery team would likely be safer going in knowing a threat is in the vicinity. A bunch of people on regular patrols would be more susceptible to attacks, the drones reduce the amount of human exposure to attack.
It depends on how you look at things. Given the circumstances, that there was no way they could evolve into a competitive streaming service, they may have made the smart choice as to maximize profits off the of shrinking business as long as possible. Franchise owners made millions, it was good while it lasted. In that sense they were already winners. They likely would have lost money trying to shift to streaming because they were not structured to be able to do it efficiently.
The accuracy of radar has stood up in court many times over. If anything, leeway is given to defendants based on the greater innacuracy of their own speedometers. Good luck citing atmospheric disturbance as a reason to dismiss radar evidence, and regardless, getting tied up in court causes the defendants much more pain than the cops.
it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..
neither of these is true for 'regular' television...
A lot of people, my wife included, have the tv on whilst doing household chores, and aren't really watching. But i doubt many do that with NF.
Yeah but that doesn't mean you aren't speeding. That means that the police lack the technology to really get you within that range. Now Tesla admits it in logs and it is probably to the thousands of a mile per hour. It is still illegal even if it is 'normal'.
Are you kidding, cops have had technology to accurately measure your speed to tenths of a mile an hour for quite some time. As for what constitutes speeding, we all know what is technically legal. What speed is accepted in general by drivers and law enforcement was the point.
Most folks overlook Blockbusters' biggest problem....they were a franchise operation. They could not change their business model without agreement of the many franchise owners, which made them immobile. Plus, anything that might be seen as competing with the franchises would be a conflict of interest. In some respects they were a victim of their own successful franchise model. People think the company leaders had no vision or interest, not necessarily so, they just could not figure a way to evolve and keep franchisees happy. Cutting them in on a regional basis would entail a lot of complications and overhead as well.
Netflix lacks courage to take on networks and finally get rid of regional locking content bundling. Whatever you think about Jobs, he did one big 'public good' when he took on record label industry. The same needs to happen to content networks.
You are taking a myopic view of the situation. Being courageous in the manner you suggest can also be stupid. As NF grows and builds their original content library, which they don't regionally restrict, they build leverage against content owner restrictions. It will take time, forcing it now would be a setback and would be a gift to competitors.
So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.
I agree. They are evolving in the direction the market is driving them. As they mature big shifts are less likely. The question is how can they build on top of the existing infrastructure? Can they move into live broadcasting of sports?
As for original content, I think they may have opportunities in sponsoring and recording concerts in high quality, and/or shorter live music performances. Building up a library of those might have a lot of value.
And if the pilots are looking out the window they should see it in any case, so a collision is very unlikely in the first place.
Are you joking? A drone is often small and quite hard to see, and unless you know which way it is going to fly, not easy to avoid. Not to mention a firefighting pilot may have other things to keep their attention.
What is it about this drone-love that causes some to not even acknowledge that they can be an interference? And why assume all drones are tiny and can't cause damage?
People in tech tend to assume every market works like tech and it doesn't. The auto industry could not be more different. While I think there is a ton of room for innovation (Tesla is proving that) it isn't going to be easy to turn that industry on its head by just building another type of car.
Tesla has not yet shown that they can make money in the car market despite having a dominant position in the high end EV market. They are still pumping huge amounts of cash into the operation. I don't see how Apple can do any better, and they have a lot more at risk. Producing an affordable mass market vehicle and keeping it sustainable with constant model revisions is a daunting task vs the big car companies that certainly will figure out how to make money in that space.
Bernie supporters got swindled out of 220+ million dollars to see Bernie be a shill for Hillary.
So if someone named Bernie "made off" with your money, should you be
A. mad at Bernie,
B. mad at yourself for letting yourself getting swindled,
C. mad at the system, OR
D. all of the above
Just curious...
or
E. mad at the Russians (This choice was paid for by the Clinton Campaign)
Can someone enlighten me as to approximately when the expression "begs the question" started to mean "raises the question", instead of the informal fallacy of assuming that an unproven premise is true as part of a conclusion?
You "raise" a question AFTER the situation "begs" it. If you raise it too soon, it won't be begged. If you wait till it is begged, then its obvious. That in why begged questions are inherently obvious.
Previous generations called it moonlighting. Recent generations have accepted the myth that you can change things just by calling them by a different name.
Micro USB jacks wear out even more quickly. I wonder what the new connectors will be like. Everything is getting shittier.
And increasing their usage will decrease their lifetime.
I like my headphone jack near the top of the phone, not at the bottom where the usb port typically is. I also may want to listen while I am charging. I also don't like the extra bulk of BT headphones, nor the cost for what is often crappy audio quality.
FTA; Neglect of duty is described as "inattention to duty resulting in a loss of property or life; careless inspection; negligent performance of duties; failure to exercise due diligence in performance of duties; failure to follow procedures."
When you have a lot of strict procedures, and you have tight monitoring, you get a lot of violations.
Many cars now have this automatic braking feature, I'm sure there have been incidences with other cars that don't get the PR. Auto-Pilot was turned off according to the summary, so yes the headline is quite wrong. And you are right, the car got into a bad situation that may have been avoidable. It seems that inattention of the driver was again at fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Animal life is doing quite well. The were observed impacts on some wildlife that got huge exposures (mostly birds, insects, and invertibrea) during and soon after the accident, but its been many years since any observable impacts have been seen. Animal life is healthy and thriving in all areas of the exclusion zone. And there has certainly been no shortage of studies, and we've had multiple generations of animals during this period.
And, once the company does, the cost savings will begin.
Cost will reduce, but from what? Initial production will be very expensive. IThe question is when will they cost significantly less than the competitors? f you include the cost of money, there is no way this factory can produce on a lower cost basis until it is near full capacity and selling the output. But if Musk "buys" a bunch of the initial production using his own capital (using them for solar storage), he can inflate the cost artficially, then claim the cost is reducing on future production runs. As long as he's got huge capital and investor allegiance, he'll be able to play the game.
Production at scale does inevitably reduce cost, but once you get to a certain point the gains become small. If Tesla oversized it they could find themselves in a world of hurt. Competitors with out all of that sunk capital could be in a better position to adapt to changes.
The recovery team would likely be safer going in knowing a threat is in the vicinity. A bunch of people on regular patrols would be more susceptible to attacks, the drones reduce the amount of human exposure to attack.
In the end, the franchise owners lost too.
It depends on how you look at things. Given the circumstances, that there was no way they could evolve into a competitive streaming service, they may have made the smart choice as to maximize profits off the of shrinking business as long as possible. Franchise owners made millions, it was good while it lasted. In that sense they were already winners. They likely would have lost money trying to shift to streaming because they were not structured to be able to do it efficiently.
And what does that have to do with radar accuracy?
The accuracy of radar has stood up in court many times over. If anything, leeway is given to defendants based on the greater innacuracy of their own speedometers. Good luck citing atmospheric disturbance as a reason to dismiss radar evidence, and regardless, getting tied up in court causes the defendants much more pain than the cops.
it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..
neither of these is true for 'regular' television...
A lot of people, my wife included, have the tv on whilst doing household chores, and aren't really watching. But i doubt many do that with NF.
Yeah but that doesn't mean you aren't speeding. That means that the police lack the technology to really get you within that range. Now Tesla admits it in logs and it is probably to the thousands of a mile per hour. It is still illegal even if it is 'normal'.
Are you kidding, cops have had technology to accurately measure your speed to tenths of a mile an hour for quite some time. As for what constitutes speeding, we all know what is technically legal. What speed is accepted in general by drivers and law enforcement was the point.
10 over has pretty much become the accepted tolerance limit for most police and highway patrol. Its rare when you get a ticket for single digits over.
Most folks overlook Blockbusters' biggest problem....they were a franchise operation. They could not change their business model without agreement of the many franchise owners, which made them immobile. Plus, anything that might be seen as competing with the franchises would be a conflict of interest. In some respects they were a victim of their own successful franchise model. People think the company leaders had no vision or interest, not necessarily so, they just could not figure a way to evolve and keep franchisees happy. Cutting them in on a regional basis would entail a lot of complications and overhead as well.
Netflix lacks courage to take on networks and finally get rid of regional locking content bundling. Whatever you think about Jobs, he did one big 'public good' when he took on record label industry. The same needs to happen to content networks.
You are taking a myopic view of the situation. Being courageous in the manner you suggest can also be stupid. As NF grows and builds their original content library, which they don't regionally restrict, they build leverage against content owner restrictions. It will take time, forcing it now would be a setback and would be a gift to competitors.
So I think their play is what they are already doing - pour money into original programming, build their own back catalog so they aren't at the mercy of greedy content providers, and keep providing great customer service.
I agree. They are evolving in the direction the market is driving them. As they mature big shifts are less likely. The question is how can they build on top of the existing infrastructure? Can they move into live broadcasting of sports?
As for original content, I think they may have opportunities in sponsoring and recording concerts in high quality, and/or shorter live music performances. Building up a library of those might have a lot of value.
And if the pilots are looking out the window they should see it in any case, so a collision is very unlikely in the first place.
Are you joking? A drone is often small and quite hard to see, and unless you know which way it is going to fly, not easy to avoid. Not to mention a firefighting pilot may have other things to keep their attention.
What is it about this drone-love that causes some to not even acknowledge that they can be an interference? And why assume all drones are tiny and can't cause damage?
People in tech tend to assume every market works like tech and it doesn't. The auto industry could not be more different. While I think there is a ton of room for innovation (Tesla is proving that) it isn't going to be easy to turn that industry on its head by just building another type of car.
Tesla has not yet shown that they can make money in the car market despite having a dominant position in the high end EV market. They are still pumping huge amounts of cash into the operation. I don't see how Apple can do any better, and they have a lot more at risk. Producing an affordable mass market vehicle and keeping it sustainable with constant model revisions is a daunting task vs the big car companies that certainly will figure out how to make money in that space.
No, the Russians did it in response to an offensive video.
Bernie supporters got swindled out of 220+ million dollars to see Bernie be a shill for Hillary.
So if someone named Bernie "made off" with your money, should you be A. mad at Bernie, B. mad at yourself for letting yourself getting swindled, C. mad at the system, OR D. all of the above Just curious...
or E. mad at the Russians (This choice was paid for by the Clinton Campaign)
Can someone enlighten me as to approximately when the expression "begs the question" started to mean "raises the question", instead of the informal fallacy of assuming that an unproven premise is true as part of a conclusion?
You "raise" a question AFTER the situation "begs" it. If you raise it too soon, it won't be begged. If you wait till it is begged, then its obvious. That in why begged questions are inherently obvious.
I beg your pardon but I beg to differ.
It may not be that long before they are explaining what Twitter 'was'.
Previous generations called it moonlighting. Recent generations have accepted the myth that you can change things just by calling them by a different name.
Micro USB jacks wear out even more quickly. I wonder what the new connectors will be like. Everything is getting shittier.
And increasing their usage will decrease their lifetime.
I like my headphone jack near the top of the phone, not at the bottom where the usb port typically is. I also may want to listen while I am charging. I also don't like the extra bulk of BT headphones, nor the cost for what is often crappy audio quality.
How the fuck is LinkedIn worth $26 billion?
It is worth what the market bears. Your question should be; Why does the market bear so much?
The models are false simply because they don't account for human nature.
FTA; Neglect of duty is described as "inattention to duty resulting in a loss of property or life; careless inspection; negligent performance of duties; failure to exercise due diligence in performance of duties; failure to follow procedures."
When you have a lot of strict procedures, and you have tight monitoring, you get a lot of violations.
Many cars now have this automatic braking feature, I'm sure there have been incidences with other cars that don't get the PR. Auto-Pilot was turned off according to the summary, so yes the headline is quite wrong. And you are right, the car got into a bad situation that may have been avoidable. It seems that inattention of the driver was again at fault.