Seems like the larger question here isn't whether or not Skype will pay off, but how much it costs to aquire a well known company vs. build a competing product in house.
While Microsoft was busy loading up suitcases with cash, Google churned out Google Talk / Hangouts. Did that cost $8.5 billion to build and market?
Who cares? This is a race where Larry Ellison had to pay other teams to race against him. Turns out people don't want to watch some billionaire's ego trip just because it's presented in a sports format.
The number one killer in the world is poverty. Advocating for artificial inefficiency is advocating for the killing of real living people. Deaths due to government-mandated inefficiency arent just theoretical.
WTF? This doesn't even begin to make sense. First, your claim that taxes are an "inefficiency" is not rooted in any type of economic reality. Second, the idea that taxes don't go toward elimination of poverty is easily proven false (have you ever heard of welfare?!)
The open source company I work for has a nice donation page. Problem is, for obvious reasons (obvious for informed Americans, anyway) donations made to us are not tax deductible because we cannot become a 501c3.
The absolute best thing that could happen right now would be the release of all the NSA's spy data. In fact, that's probably the ONLY thing that could cause enough outrage to make any lasting change.
Okaaaay... now you're talking about redactions, which seems to contradict your earlier point about WikiLeaks and Manning. If WikiLeaks "can't be sure" that it's safe to release a given document, then why do they always go to the trouble of roping in journalists, governments, etc. who can perform the required redactions?
Here in San Francisco we have Instacart, which I guess is similar. They take the groceries directly to your door within a 1 hour window, so there's no need for doormen.
To the contrary, they solve the last mile problem quite well with people going right to the business where they work without a lot of irrelevant stops like typical public transportation buses would have.
Not sure what you're referring to here, as there's plenty of public transit lines that go right up to people's workplaces.
What I'm talking about is the fact that people taking these shuttles are still relying on one form of transit or another to get to the pickup point. So you can look at these shuttles as replacing an express bus/train, but not as an entire transit solution.
At any rate, it's not very efficient mass transit to transport people in one direction; it means your buses are empty nearly half the time.
Compared to what? Most transit systems have this sort of problem for the same reason. Most people want to go one way at the start of a work day and the other direction at the end of the work day.
Compared to what we're talking about. Google, Apple, and Yahoo all shuttle employees from San Francisco to the valley every day -- that's the exact opposite commute most people are making. It's ridiculous to have empty buses going in both directions.
The private shuttles don't solve the "last mile" problem that public transit provides, though. For the most part, the company shuttles only have a handful of stops.
At any rate, it's not very efficient mass transit to transport people in one direction; it means your buses are empty nearly half the time.
It's not like other mass transit is an option. Caltrain is already overloaded.
Aaaand now we're finally getting to the crux of the problem: poor mass transit, people living too far from work, the fact that nobody wants to live out in the 'burbs anymore, etc.
There's a lot of factors at play here. Trying to break this into a "rich vs. poor" thing like subby did here is ridiculously simplistic.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Google, like every ISP, is selling something that they claim is "unlimited," but that claim is 100% bogus.
The issue isn't that the EFF wants the government to tell Google what they can and can't offer, it's that Google (and other ISPs) need to be honest about what they're selling.
That is the thing about Elon Musk. You might dismiss him as a crackpot spouting off at the mouth, but he has a track record of tacking crazy ideas like this and making them into reality.
Except that Musk has stated that he has no plans to ever build this. Nobody else is planning to build it either.
Otherwise, I suppose you are a Luddite who thinks we need to sit on our hands all day wishing that civilization can collapse along with 99.9% of humanity so the few remaining can return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Good luck with that.
Right, so you either have Musk's cock in your mouth, or you're a luddite. Got it!
It's simple: there's no way of knowing exactly what the hyperloop would really cost to build, since one has never been built. He's comparing real-world prices to fantasy prices.
it's much like how pharmaceuticals that haven't been released yet always seem to promise "no side effects."
This is the sure way to possibly lose weight but not body fat giving you a higher body fat percentage and thus making you less healthy. Eating multiple small meals a day keeps your metabolism high and thus you burn more fat
Despite the fact that almost every diet book parrots this point verbatim, I've yet to see anyone present any evidence showing this to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a Google Apps account. And the phone bill of course, but that includes unlimited national calling (thanks, Sonic.net!)
Where I work, it's either Hangouts or ye olde fashioned phone calls.
Seems like the larger question here isn't whether or not Skype will pay off, but how much it costs to aquire a well known company vs. build a competing product in house.
While Microsoft was busy loading up suitcases with cash, Google churned out Google Talk / Hangouts. Did that cost $8.5 billion to build and market?
Who cares? This is a race where Larry Ellison had to pay other teams to race against him. Turns out people don't want to watch some billionaire's ego trip just because it's presented in a sports format.
Strawman much? Nobody has ever argued that removing people from poverty is the point of welfare.
Your Americentricism aside, H1-B visas cannot legally be used to hire drivers.
WTF? This doesn't even begin to make sense. First, your claim that taxes are an "inefficiency" is not rooted in any type of economic reality. Second, the idea that taxes don't go toward elimination of poverty is easily proven false (have you ever heard of welfare?!)
No, Ballmer changed his mind a few years later.
...that you shouldn't listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
The open source company I work for has a nice donation page. Problem is, for obvious reasons (obvious for informed Americans, anyway) donations made to us are not tax deductible because we cannot become a 501c3.
As long as our fernet supply is in good shape, we'll be fine.
Yeah, no. If I'm going to say something that could potentially get me killed, it would be irresponsible of me to put my name on it.
The absolute best thing that could happen right now would be the release of all the NSA's spy data. In fact, that's probably the ONLY thing that could cause enough outrage to make any lasting change.
Okaaaay... now you're talking about redactions, which seems to contradict your earlier point about WikiLeaks and Manning. If WikiLeaks "can't be sure" that it's safe to release a given document, then why do they always go to the trouble of roping in journalists, governments, etc. who can perform the required redactions?
The family hiding Anne Franke was a government? Please explain.
And? If the government has nothing to hide, as they've repeatedly claimed, then what's the problem?
Here in San Francisco we have Instacart, which I guess is similar. They take the groceries directly to your door within a 1 hour window, so there's no need for doormen.
Not sure what you're referring to here, as there's plenty of public transit lines that go right up to people's workplaces.
What I'm talking about is the fact that people taking these shuttles are still relying on one form of transit or another to get to the pickup point. So you can look at these shuttles as replacing an express bus/train, but not as an entire transit solution.
Compared to what we're talking about. Google, Apple, and Yahoo all shuttle employees from San Francisco to the valley every day -- that's the exact opposite commute most people are making. It's ridiculous to have empty buses going in both directions.
The private shuttles don't solve the "last mile" problem that public transit provides, though. For the most part, the company shuttles only have a handful of stops.
At any rate, it's not very efficient mass transit to transport people in one direction; it means your buses are empty nearly half the time.
Aaaand now we're finally getting to the crux of the problem: poor mass transit, people living too far from work, the fact that nobody wants to live out in the 'burbs anymore, etc.
There's a lot of factors at play here. Trying to break this into a "rich vs. poor" thing like subby did here is ridiculously simplistic.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Google, like every ISP, is selling something that they claim is "unlimited," but that claim is 100% bogus.
The issue isn't that the EFF wants the government to tell Google what they can and can't offer, it's that Google (and other ISPs) need to be honest about what they're selling.
Except that Musk has stated that he has no plans to ever build this. Nobody else is planning to build it either.
Right, so you either have Musk's cock in your mouth, or you're a luddite. Got it!
It's simple: there's no way of knowing exactly what the hyperloop would really cost to build, since one has never been built. He's comparing real-world prices to fantasy prices.
it's much like how pharmaceuticals that haven't been released yet always seem to promise "no side effects."
Despite the fact that almost every diet book parrots this point verbatim, I've yet to see anyone present any evidence showing this to be true.
Does this affect Deutsche Telekom subsidiaries such as T-Mobile USA?