No action is not guaranteed to be risk free. I think you made the classic mistake that assumes that continuing as you are is the most risk averse option.
With Tesla coming to Europe and other mayor car brands jumping on the bandwagon (Mercedes, BMW) this seems not to apply in this case. On the other hand they are planning to milk the maximum out of their current investments. They just decided that the generation afther the one they are currently working on will be electric only. So, they are winding down their investements into a technology that is clearly going to be phased out.
Sensible. Further investing in it would be very risky. The current approach already assumes that they will be able to get the investments out of the currently developed platform. Which is not necessarily the case if customers start switching to EV massively.
Mmmhhh...it's not so great. I tested it and I permanently had the feeling that someone was "co-watching" my film over my shoulder... Kind of took the thrill away...
That's the kind of risk you can take when the governments grant you loan guarantees (Airbus wouldn't have had to pay back the loans for developing the A380 if hadn't generated sufficient sales to pay for itself). As it stands, it looks like the A380 program will just barely break even, so at least the EU citizens won't get stuck with the bill.
Hmm. I'm not an expert on this but I do seem to remember that Airbus accused Boeing of exactly the same thing in front of the World Trade Agency (WTA).
Me thinks they were probably both right: many governments both in US and in EU are keen to give subsedies and government backed loans in return for employment. But in both cases the government backed loans will need to be repaid. Unless Airbus/Boeing would want to face bankruptcy...
You're probably misunderstood: it's you. You are a miserable piece of SH*T for bothering Apple with you stupid complaints. This is Apple's way of saying: buy a new computer already, you cheap little piece of... dust...
The article goes on and on about the two screens. Wow. And a big battery (of course). Yes! But guess what is hidden at the end of the article? Yep. Weight and size: 12mm thick and 230 grams. It's a total brick. So much of innovation.
Here is my problem: Apple is presenting not one but 2 phones. Now why would they do that? In my view the iPhone X is really the new iPhone they wanted to make. But instead of simply comming forward and saying 'this is the new iPhone' they do this:
They produce a cheap quick and dirty small evolution of the iPhone 7 and label it 'iPhone8' (which it really isn't). And then they use this as an excuse to charge more for the real next iPhone. Saying 'Hey look at us. We made TWO new phones. Isn't that great? Now pay us'. And by the way: if you're too cheap to give us some extra money you can still buy the CHEAP version. There you are.
I'm curious to see how many people will actually buy one of them, since the choice is paying extra for your new phone or paying the normal price for a new phone that is already surpassed even before you buy it (instead of a few months after)...
Umm. According your definition any money already spend is a 'sunk cost'. If you are going to talk to your boss like that you not be making many friends. "Yeah the investment in my project is a sunk cost anyway".
No. The definition clearly states: "permanently lost". So let's apply this to your example of the factory. If you use it, the investment is not lost because you can use the result to make profit. If you sell it the investement is not lost either because you can recuperate (a part of) your investment in the sale.
But if you first build it and then abandon it you cannot recuperate the money spend on the build. The investement is permanently los. Then the investement becomes a sunk cost.
The definition you refer to says: "Money already spent and permanently lost". The "and" is important. Yes the costs were already spent but that doesn't make them sunk costs. That only happens when they are permanently lost. And that only happened at the moment they decided that they were definitively abandoning the project. So, for me the statement is a correct one. According the cited definition.
Umm. Call me a modernist, lazy, whatever. But reading the story exerpt gave me a 'Yep. Still as bad as I remembered'. If I have to drive randomly without any concept where I am or of time I'm not happy. That was the case before the arrival of the GPS (yes, I'm that old) and it still is the case.
So I'll use the GPS whenever I can, thank you very much!
While your reasoning is of course correct (higher half life translates into a lower intensity of radiation). It doesn't mean, however, that radioactive wase doesn't remain dangerous for more than 1000 years. I think nobody in the nuclear industry (not even the proponants) would deny that. Look e.g. to answer on question 4 on this pro nuclar power website where they admit that it takes 1000-10000 years for nuclear waste to become sufficiently safe. link
Sorry to break it to you. Yes we did our best to fit as much data as possible on one floppy disk (664 blocks in use anyone?). But no we did not like it (boot - switch floppy - wp51/wp51 - switch floppy - load document - switch floppy again...) And don't get me started on disk dupe and stacker from the times you could easily fill a hard drive a few times over with software alone..
So, yes it's agreeable to go down the memory lane but longing back to floppies? Really?
I tend to agree. For me the question is though: for how much longer? You refer to the first iPhone. And rightfully so. It was a complete game changer. Even to the extend that some didn't even get it. But most of us saw it for what it was: the future.
But now the iPhone seems to be locked in a feature race with other phone makers *cough*Samsung*cough*. A race it seems to be slowly losing. Until now the iPhone users have been very loyal though and are dutifully paying the premium prices (although the top of the line Samsung is not cheaper). I guess I'm wondering how long the reputation of 'visionary product' will keep it afloat. Interesting corrolaria: imagine that at a certain moment Apple finds out it cannot keep the prices of its top of the line iPhone model as high as today. What would it mean for the others? Would they still be able to keep their prices? Or would it just mean that the whole update cycle with people standing in line for the privilege of spending €1.000 is over for everyone?
You are mostly right. Except the hospital thing. As far as I know these deseases are so contageous because they have an incubation period. The simptoms only appear after a certain time but it is contagous before. So the most victims have already been made by the time the first patients arrive in hospital. Then they have to track down who was in contact with these childeren (family, school, hobby's...) in the last X hours...
This article just rocked me to the core. It blew my mind. Since my brain is only attached to the rest of my nervous system by a single connection and was unable to generate a significant accelleration... it toppled over (despite traveling cautiously and at slow speed)
Slashdot Mirror
No action is not guaranteed to be risk free.
I think you made the classic mistake that assumes that continuing as you are is the most risk averse option.
With Tesla coming to Europe and other mayor car brands jumping on the bandwagon (Mercedes, BMW) this seems not to apply in this case.
On the other hand they are planning to milk the maximum out of their current investments. They just decided that the generation afther the one they are currently working on will be electric only. So, they are winding down their investements into a technology that is clearly going to be phased out.
Sensible. Further investing in it would be very risky. The current approach already assumes that they will be able to get the investments out of the currently developed platform. Which is not necessarily the case if customers start switching to EV massively.
Mmmhhh...it's not so great.
I tested it and I permanently had the feeling that someone was "co-watching" my film over my shoulder...
Kind of took the thrill away...
That's the kind of risk you can take when the governments grant you loan guarantees (Airbus wouldn't have had to pay back the loans for developing the A380 if hadn't generated sufficient sales to pay for itself). As it stands, it looks like the A380 program will just barely break even, so at least the EU citizens won't get stuck with the bill.
Hmm. I'm not an expert on this but I do seem to remember that Airbus accused Boeing of exactly the same thing in front of the World Trade Agency (WTA).
Me thinks they were probably both right: many governments both in US and in EU are keen to give subsedies and government backed loans in return for employment. But in both cases the government backed loans will need to be repaid. Unless Airbus/Boeing would want to face bankruptcy...
FTA: "But as the ice has receded, new passageways have emerged..."
Nonsens! The ice is not receding. Long live oil!
Well I would personally also prefer for you to touch you yubikey instead of whipping out your phone to take a picture of your ... personal thing...
... and moonneeyyy (Beasy Boys)
Give your kids some sweets and stop giving them toy guns might work even better still
I just hope that it won't start to smell when you get it wet...
Just like ... Apple's iPhone X??
"Microsoft Releases New Months"
You're probably misunderstood: it's you. ... dust...
You are a miserable piece of SH*T for bothering Apple with you stupid complaints.
This is Apple's way of saying: buy a new computer already, you cheap little piece of
The article goes on and on about the two screens. Wow. And a big battery (of course). Yes!
But guess what is hidden at the end of the article?
Yep. Weight and size: 12mm thick and 230 grams. It's a total brick. So much of innovation.
Here is my problem: Apple is presenting not one but 2 phones. Now why would they do that?
In my view the iPhone X is really the new iPhone they wanted to make. But instead of simply comming forward and saying 'this is the new iPhone' they do this:
They produce a cheap quick and dirty small evolution of the iPhone 7 and label it 'iPhone8' (which it really isn't).
And then they use this as an excuse to charge more for the real next iPhone. Saying 'Hey look at us. We made TWO new phones. Isn't that great? Now pay us'.
And by the way: if you're too cheap to give us some extra money you can still buy the CHEAP version. There you are.
I'm curious to see how many people will actually buy one of them, since the choice is paying extra for your new phone or paying the normal price for a new phone that is already surpassed even before you buy it (instead of a few months after)...
Umm. According your definition any money already spend is a 'sunk cost'. If you are going to talk to your boss like that you not be making many friends. "Yeah the investment in my project is a sunk cost anyway".
No. The definition clearly states: "permanently lost". So let's apply this to your example of the factory. If you use it, the investment is not lost because you can use the result to make profit. If you sell it the investement is not lost either because you can recuperate (a part of) your investment in the sale.
But if you first build it and then abandon it you cannot recuperate the money spend on the build. The investement is permanently los. Then the investement becomes a sunk cost.
The definition you refer to says: "Money already spent and permanently lost".
The "and" is important. Yes the costs were already spent but that doesn't make them sunk costs. That only happens when they are permanently lost. And that only happened at the moment they decided that they were definitively abandoning the project.
So, for me the statement is a correct one. According the cited definition.
[..]GPS tracking devices often include the necessary cellular network hardware to provide remote disable capability.
So, yes, you can disable a car via the GPS tracking device.
...correct, but No the car was not disabled via a GPS signal. The parent was correct (albeit a bit patronizing) in pointing this out.
Umm. Call me a modernist, lazy, whatever.
But reading the story exerpt gave me a 'Yep. Still as bad as I remembered'. If I have to drive randomly without any concept where I am or of time I'm not happy. That was the case before the arrival of the GPS (yes, I'm that old) and it still is the case.
So I'll use the GPS whenever I can, thank you very much!
While your reasoning is of course correct (higher half life translates into a lower intensity of radiation).
It doesn't mean, however, that radioactive wase doesn't remain dangerous for more than 1000 years. I think nobody in the nuclear industry (not even the proponants) would deny that. Look e.g. to answer on question 4 on this pro nuclar power website where they admit that it takes 1000-10000 years for nuclear waste to become sufficiently safe. link
and don't forget...Pokemon Go.
Seriously, global warming is coming. It's inevitable. We can only try to mitigate it as best as possible. By reducing CO2 emissions. Drastically. Now.
Sorry to break it to you. ...)
Yes we did our best to fit as much data as possible on one floppy disk (664 blocks in use anyone?).
But no we did not like it (boot - switch floppy - wp51/wp51 - switch floppy - load document - switch floppy again
And don't get me started on disk dupe and stacker from the times you could easily fill a hard drive a few times over with software alone..
So, yes it's agreeable to go down the memory lane but longing back to floppies? Really?
Yep. Make the app great again!
So, maybe we should just, like, compare them?
Nah, just too much of a hassle, right?
I tend to agree.
For me the question is though: for how much longer?
You refer to the first iPhone. And rightfully so. It was a complete game changer. Even to the extend that some didn't even get it.
But most of us saw it for what it was: the future.
But now the iPhone seems to be locked in a feature race with other phone makers *cough*Samsung*cough*. A race it seems to be slowly losing. Until now the iPhone users have been very loyal though and are dutifully paying the premium prices (although the top of the line Samsung is not cheaper).
I guess I'm wondering how long the reputation of 'visionary product' will keep it afloat.
Interesting corrolaria: imagine that at a certain moment Apple finds out it cannot keep the prices of its top of the line iPhone model as high as today. What would it mean for the others? Would they still be able to keep their prices? Or would it just mean that the whole update cycle with people standing in line for the privilege of spending €1.000 is over for everyone?
Just some thoughts...
You are mostly right. Except the hospital thing. As far as I know these deseases are so contageous because they have an incubation period. The simptoms only appear after a certain time but it is contagous before. So the most victims have already been made by the time the first patients arrive in hospital.
Then they have to track down who was in contact with these childeren (family, school, hobby's...) in the last X hours...
Cheers!
This article just rocked me to the core. It blew my mind. Since my brain is only attached to the rest of my nervous system by a single connection and was unable to generate a significant accelleration ... it toppled over (despite traveling cautiously and at slow speed)