Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits
Deposits are liabilities. They only turn into revenue when you deliver whatever it was the deposit was for.
Exactly, cash is not always revenue. Every dollar of deposit must have an offsetting liability until the product is delivered. They can still burn through the cash and ultimately leave the deposit holders in the lurch with a bankruptcy restructuring.
Inb4 all the comments of Telsa being a failure for the amount of money they are losing. But, in reality, that money isn't a loss. It is investment. Look how long Amazon lasted before they turned their first profit.
While I wouldn't call Tesla failure, yet, there are some significant differences between Tesla and Amazon. For starters, much of Amazon's stock is not paid for by Amazon until it is sold, so they don't have to tie up funds and take losses on unsold goods. They make money off of logistics and can scale a lot more easily then Tesla. Amazon can also return old inventory to free up space if they don't want need it; and for other sellers on Amazon who hold the stock themselves Amazon doesn't even have storage costs but still get their cut. It's a lot harder to do that as a manufacturer, where making the wrong guess on demand or supply chain problems directly impact the bottom line. As for Tesla's deposits, those are liabilities they must book until they deliver so while tehy can spend the cash to fund operations they still risk a cash drain if people get tired of waiting or other manufacturers start selling electric vehicles in large enough quantities to dampen demand for Teslas. If enough people cancel Tesla could face a severe cash crunch and decide bankruptcy and restructuring is the way to go. In addition, I wonder how many people who thought they'd get a 30K Tesla discover they aren't available and only fully loaded ones at maybe 10K more will decide they can't afford one and ask for a refund.
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
So, is that an argument that we shouldn't have regulations, or that they should be better implemented?
Not so much an argument for either point but rather an explanation that regulated entities seek to use regulations regulators to their advantage to keep out competitors. Even the best intended regulations can be compromised in this way; hat doesn't mean regulation is bad or should be avoided but need also to be considered for their impact on competition insofar as the setup barriers to entry or give other advantages to incumbents.
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
Wal-Mart is a big part of the problem. They only carry censored music, but they are big enough to have helped put real music stores out of business. Wal-Mart has literally decreased the availability of CDs that people want to buy.
I agree, an even bigger impact is their driving CD prices down to the point where record stores couldn't compete as consumers expectations were CDs were only worth $10 or less. Streaming's growth completed a 1 - 2 punch to their collective jaws. The only record stores we have now combine a large used CD / Video catalogue with some new releases. You can buy a CD and return it so your cost is essentially a dollar or two for the album; making it competitive with digital if you rip the CD or even cheaper if you like more than one song.
The rise of digital also changed how we want to listen as well. Streaming has made it easy to play hours of music, either from a subscription or once you have ripped your collection without changing of CDs.
WalMart is likely the targets CD retailer in the US (I saw likely as I cannot find hard data but they have been in the past IIRC) what they decide is likely to have a major impact on CDs in the US. At any rate, CD sales are declining along with overall album sales in any media. Digital represented about 505 of sales in 2016 vs. 34% for physical media. Of digital, 59% was streaming, the first time it was greater than 50% and drove the 18% increase in digital sales. It seems buyers are more interested in buying songs rather than albums in most cases; with album purchase dominated by older titles; which makes sense if you look t US retailers shelves you see a lot of older albums and a few new ones, mostly from big names.
What's old is new again, as buyers have streamed to single songs, harkening back to the old days of 45's.
I other words, in pure bullshit. Technical are random patterns and luck, not market fundamentals you should rely on.
My favorite story about technical trading was when a finance prof created a "chart" from coin flips and asked for analysis from a technical trading "expert. Looking at the chart the expert predicted it would go up and recommended a buy. The expert was quite upset when told it was series of random results form a coin flip. If you can't tell random from patterns then you aren't doing analysis. Is there some value in analyzing stock movements to try to understand what is driving tehm? Sure. Do charts tell yo when to buy and sell based on technical analysis? No.
from 1933 to 1975, when they got the US off the gold standard and onto fiat currency. Whether cryptocurrencies are viable long-term, I couldn't tell you, but governments HATE not having a monopoly on stores of value.
Actually, it was used to increase the money supply as the government bought US. gold and increased the price about 75% resulting in foreign holdersof gold selling it to the US. This increase in gold holdings resulted in an increase in the money supply, inflation and an increse in output. It was not illegal to own good as jewlery and collector coins was still ok. The old habit of buying gold chains as a way to hold gold was still possible.
Here's the real problem though: people say they want to decide for themselves what is true, but in the past when presented with obviously fake stories, these same people did not do the research to actually determine if it's true.
These are people who think that they can establish what's true based on faith and feelings, not research and facts. To them, preponderance of evidence means "what does your gut tell you".
Trying to sway their opinion with mere facts is an exercise in futility. They believe they have the right to choose what the facts are.
I really wish I lived in their world.
In addition, there is evidence the more someone is presented with facts counter to their beliefs they tend to become even more firm in their beliefs rather than being swayed or even reconsider what they believe in light of the facts.
You can also sue the at fault insurer (typically in small claims) for diminished resale value. A wrecked and fixed car is worth less than an unwrecked car.
In America you will win, but they will make you take them to court. The insurance companies don't want people to know this is possible.
Depends on the company. Mine sends me a dimished value claim form to make a claim.
Unemployment insurance is just a holdover from another era, dressed up to appeal to old boomers too lazy to work and too entitled to seek training or personal betterment.
It's a bit more complicated than that. collecting benefits requires one to seek work weekly and benefits are limited. Employees actually pay for the insurance through lower wages, even though they don't see it as a seperate item in their pay check. Seasonal workers may use it to tide them over between jobs.
Instead of paying people NOT to work - the big government idea favored by the AC - we should allow federal agencies (especially parks and transportation) to hire unlimited minimum wage workers for infrastructure improvement projects or paid training. This approach eliminates other wage regulation (the private sector must pay higher than the guarantee wage), delivers the ultimate work requirement for government assistance, and provides a direct avenue to labor force retraining/modernization. It's far simpler than the current system involving complex, overlapping big government programs, more economically useful (infrastructure building and maintenance), and more socially useful for able-bodied people (training opportunities, work requirements, etc.).
We did that during the New Deal with things such CCC and WPA.
A jobs guarantee is THE conservative answer to welfare, and it's a shame you (the AC) are too close-minded to see it.
I find it a bit ironic to call greatly increasing the scope and power of the government by making it the employer of last resort a conservative answer.
The dealers who sell both IC engines and Electric motor cars, have vested interest in killing the electric cars. We know theoretically electric cars have lower maintenance. But they know actual data, brandwise and model wise, which cars and features produce repair shop revenue and which dont.
I am not sure that will be as big of an issue. Modern vehicles have much longer maintenance intervals so dealers have had to adjust to changing service revenue streams over time. Ford can increase per vehicle profits for dealers, dealers can charge to install chargers, and cars will still need tires, wiper blades, etc. Plus, EVs may be leased which is also profitable for dealers. In addition, it is the out of warranty repairs that are the money makers anyway; warranty repair reimbursement is set by the manufacturers and is not nearly as high as their dealer's standard labor rates. Who knows how reliable the comments will be at say 100K miles?
Dealers will sell whatever is popular and profitable. Service revenue is nice but that is an uncertain amount of money down the road vs. money right now. Furthermore, sales persons are typically paid based on how much they get over a base line so they will push whatever gives them the higher commission regardless of what it is. The real losers are all the independent shops that will lose a lot of business as electrics become a higher percentage of cars on the road.
Access to the internet is not an interstate action. You connect locally.
At any rate, the EPA has rules for emission standards and California has tougher ones
CA was given a waiver by the feds to allow them to set higher standards.
Federal agencies can not dictate what laws a state can pass that goes above the regulation baseline set forth by federal law. (see minimum wage)
Except that the state laws on the minimum wage do not conflict with the Federal one. The question would be has Congress given the FCC sole jurisdiction over internet services regulation in which case state net neutrality laws would conflict with that authority. My guess is if tehy haven't the big ISPs will push for Congress to do so.
If I was selected for a jury the prosecutor had better bring a lot more to the table than that. If that's the best evidence for their case I would acquit.
Though I might consider that slightly better than eye witness testimony.
I doubt that is all they would use. It could be used to corroborate other facts in the case as to further prove this person actually committed the crime; for example it could fill in for missing pieces in the surveillance video if it correlated with his actions in the available videos. The defense would offer some alternate explanation and it would be up to jury to decide which facts seem most plausible and thus wether or not to convict. As a side note, he has apparently admitted to the murder.
If you're trading in Canada, you're liable to their laws and they are able to seize related equipment and data with your co-operation or not, and performing a deliberate act with the express intention of removing said access can only be construed as obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on the court order. It's not even "open to interpretation"... it's quite clear that the only reason to use a facility that cuts off the system should the police come knocking is to stop the police seeing things you don't want them to see but that they may well be otherwise entitled to see.
Uber are scumbags because courts like this allow them to be.
While I agree with you, as TFA points out there is a hazy line between obstructing justice and not allowing access to material not in the warrant; as it points out in other cases Uber complied with the warrant after they had a chance to review it. A warrant should not be grounds for a fishing expedition just as a company should be eld accountable if they destroy evidence once they know it may be part of an investigation.
Doesn't mean Uber is not a bad actor but I do not think such things are cut and dry either.
Initial justification is decentralization. That's still valid.
True, but then an initial justification of communism as an economic system was the equitable distribution of property amongst the population to climate the gap between the rich and poor. That may also be still valid but doesn't mean it outweighs the downsides and thus a viable long term solution.
The issue for me is not whether an idea originates locally or federally. The issue is that the better idea should prevail.
Liking good things is not a position that should be marginalized on account of political jurisdiction.
However, one person's good idea is a bad idea to another; and in the US the Federal law trumps state or local laws. Thus, teh tension between Federal supremacy and states' rights.
I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.
They are caught in the middle. I would simply tell them they are cut off and avoid any issues that may occur from keeping them but messing with they connection. IANAL, but acting in response to the DCMA may not protect them from the results of what they chose to do. It may just be safer to end the contractual relationship.
You seem to be the guy to ask: Was he also involved in the Mercury Program? I know his first actual flight was in Gemini, but I wonder if he might have caught the tail end of Mercury, too?
Provoked by Japanese reporting, though maybe it was bad translating. There were four generations of manned space flight (in America), but at least in translation it came off as something like "He was involved in all three."
He was named an astronaut just as Mercury wound down and made the first manned Gemini flight with Gus Grissom.
I was pivelnged to work at NASA right after ALT and was in meetings with John Young. A pilot's pilot who would make a comment that went right to teh heart of whatever problem we were working on.
They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.
While I agree with you, what happens if the infringement claims turn out to be false and as a result of the ISP acting on them someone suffers real harm? The ISP is already aware that their actions could cause the harm, and the were negligent in not ensuring the claims of infringement were valid before taking action. I'm sure their TOS would have them disclaim any liability but it would be interesting to see if it would hold up in court.They should let the copyright owner take action and not get in the middle absent a court order.
Good! If the citizens of California and New York feel these rules are necessary and important they should be able to dictate such rules as they see fit.
That was, once upon a time, the magic of America, applying bottom up legislation allows for what works in specific areas to be applied and for other areas to not be applied.
It's time to go back to an anti-federalist interpretation of the federal government.
You forgot that people are only anti-federalist when the feds do something they don't like, but all for the Feds to exert their power to prevent states form doing something they don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits
Deposits are liabilities. They only turn into revenue when you deliver whatever it was the deposit was for.
Exactly, cash is not always revenue. Every dollar of deposit must have an offsetting liability until the product is delivered. They can still burn through the cash and ultimately leave the deposit holders in the lurch with a bankruptcy restructuring.
Inb4 all the comments of Telsa being a failure for the amount of money they are losing. But, in reality, that money isn't a loss. It is investment. Look how long Amazon lasted before they turned their first profit.
While I wouldn't call Tesla failure, yet, there are some significant differences between Tesla and Amazon. For starters, much of Amazon's stock is not paid for by Amazon until it is sold, so they don't have to tie up funds and take losses on unsold goods. They make money off of logistics and can scale a lot more easily then Tesla. Amazon can also return old inventory to free up space if they don't want need it; and for other sellers on Amazon who hold the stock themselves Amazon doesn't even have storage costs but still get their cut. It's a lot harder to do that as a manufacturer, where making the wrong guess on demand or supply chain problems directly impact the bottom line. As for Tesla's deposits, those are liabilities they must book until they deliver so while tehy can spend the cash to fund operations they still risk a cash drain if people get tired of waiting or other manufacturers start selling electric vehicles in large enough quantities to dampen demand for Teslas. If enough people cancel Tesla could face a severe cash crunch and decide bankruptcy and restructuring is the way to go. In addition, I wonder how many people who thought they'd get a 30K Tesla discover they aren't available and only fully loaded ones at maybe 10K more will decide they can't afford one and ask for a refund.
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
So, is that an argument that we shouldn't have regulations, or that they should be better implemented?
Not so much an argument for either point but rather an explanation that regulated entities seek to use regulations regulators to their advantage to keep out competitors. Even the best intended regulations can be compromised in this way; hat doesn't mean regulation is bad or should be avoided but need also to be considered for their impact on competition insofar as the setup barriers to entry or give other advantages to incumbents.
Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.
The point of regulations, while they may start at an intent to help the public, quickly becomes another way to limit competition and protect existing companies by setting up barriers to entry.
Wal-Mart is a big part of the problem. They only carry censored music, but they are big enough to have helped put real music stores out of business. Wal-Mart has literally decreased the availability of CDs that people want to buy.
I agree, an even bigger impact is their driving CD prices down to the point where record stores couldn't compete as consumers expectations were CDs were only worth $10 or less. Streaming's growth completed a 1 - 2 punch to their collective jaws. The only record stores we have now combine a large used CD / Video catalogue with some new releases. You can buy a CD and return it so your cost is essentially a dollar or two for the album; making it competitive with digital if you rip the CD or even cheaper if you like more than one song. The rise of digital also changed how we want to listen as well. Streaming has made it easy to play hours of music, either from a subscription or once you have ripped your collection without changing of CDs.
WalMart is likely the targets CD retailer in the US (I saw likely as I cannot find hard data but they have been in the past IIRC) what they decide is likely to have a major impact on CDs in the US. At any rate, CD sales are declining along with overall album sales in any media. Digital represented about 505 of sales in 2016 vs. 34% for physical media. Of digital, 59% was streaming, the first time it was greater than 50% and drove the 18% increase in digital sales. It seems buyers are more interested in buying songs rather than albums in most cases; with album purchase dominated by older titles; which makes sense if you look t US retailers shelves you see a lot of older albums and a few new ones, mostly from big names.
What's old is new again, as buyers have streamed to single songs, harkening back to the old days of 45's.
I other words, in pure bullshit. Technical are random patterns and luck, not market fundamentals you should rely on.
My favorite story about technical trading was when a finance prof created a "chart" from coin flips and asked for analysis from a technical trading "expert. Looking at the chart the expert predicted it would go up and recommended a buy. The expert was quite upset when told it was series of random results form a coin flip. If you can't tell random from patterns then you aren't doing analysis. Is there some value in analyzing stock movements to try to understand what is driving tehm? Sure. Do charts tell yo when to buy and sell based on technical analysis? No.
Not only possible, but stylish
I pity the fool who doesn't own gold...
from 1933 to 1975, when they got the US off the gold standard and onto fiat currency. Whether cryptocurrencies are viable long-term, I couldn't tell you, but governments HATE not having a monopoly on stores of value.
Actually, it was used to increase the money supply as the government bought US. gold and increased the price about 75% resulting in foreign holdersof gold selling it to the US. This increase in gold holdings resulted in an increase in the money supply, inflation and an increse in output. It was not illegal to own good as jewlery and collector coins was still ok. The old habit of buying gold chains as a way to hold gold was still possible.
Here's the real problem though: people say they want to decide for themselves what is true, but in the past when presented with obviously fake stories, these same people did not do the research to actually determine if it's true.
These are people who think that they can establish what's true based on faith and feelings, not research and facts. To them, preponderance of evidence means "what does your gut tell you". Trying to sway their opinion with mere facts is an exercise in futility. They believe they have the right to choose what the facts are.
I really wish I lived in their world.
In addition, there is evidence the more someone is presented with facts counter to their beliefs they tend to become even more firm in their beliefs rather than being swayed or even reconsider what they believe in light of the facts.
...and they heard Microsoft crashes more? Badabump.
Yes. iCloud.com users get a discount, with Mac.com getting an extra one do to their advanced age.
Hate to think how much more they'd charge someone with an AOL email address, then.
They're all probably over 60 and not driving much anyway.
You can also sue the at fault insurer (typically in small claims) for diminished resale value. A wrecked and fixed car is worth less than an unwrecked car.
In America you will win, but they will make you take them to court. The insurance companies don't want people to know this is possible.
Depends on the company. Mine sends me a dimished value claim form to make a claim.
Unemployment insurance is just a holdover from another era, dressed up to appeal to old boomers too lazy to work and too entitled to seek training or personal betterment.
It's a bit more complicated than that. collecting benefits requires one to seek work weekly and benefits are limited. Employees actually pay for the insurance through lower wages, even though they don't see it as a seperate item in their pay check. Seasonal workers may use it to tide them over between jobs.
Instead of paying people NOT to work - the big government idea favored by the AC - we should allow federal agencies (especially parks and transportation) to hire unlimited minimum wage workers for infrastructure improvement projects or paid training. This approach eliminates other wage regulation (the private sector must pay higher than the guarantee wage), delivers the ultimate work requirement for government assistance, and provides a direct avenue to labor force retraining/modernization. It's far simpler than the current system involving complex, overlapping big government programs, more economically useful (infrastructure building and maintenance), and more socially useful for able-bodied people (training opportunities, work requirements, etc.).
We did that during the New Deal with things such CCC and WPA.
A jobs guarantee is THE conservative answer to welfare, and it's a shame you (the AC) are too close-minded to see it.
I find it a bit ironic to call greatly increasing the scope and power of the government by making it the employer of last resort a conservative answer.
The dealers who sell both IC engines and Electric motor cars, have vested interest in killing the electric cars. We know theoretically electric cars have lower maintenance. But they know actual data, brandwise and model wise, which cars and features produce repair shop revenue and which dont.
I am not sure that will be as big of an issue. Modern vehicles have much longer maintenance intervals so dealers have had to adjust to changing service revenue streams over time. Ford can increase per vehicle profits for dealers, dealers can charge to install chargers, and cars will still need tires, wiper blades, etc. Plus, EVs may be leased which is also profitable for dealers. In addition, it is the out of warranty repairs that are the money makers anyway; warranty repair reimbursement is set by the manufacturers and is not nearly as high as their dealer's standard labor rates. Who knows how reliable the comments will be at say 100K miles?
Dealers will sell whatever is popular and profitable. Service revenue is nice but that is an uncertain amount of money down the road vs. money right now. Furthermore, sales persons are typically paid based on how much they get over a base line so they will push whatever gives them the higher commission regardless of what it is. The real losers are all the independent shops that will lose a lot of business as electrics become a higher percentage of cars on the road.
Access to the internet is not an interstate action. You connect locally.
At any rate, the EPA has rules for emission standards and California has tougher ones
CA was given a waiver by the feds to allow them to set higher standards.
Federal agencies can not dictate what laws a state can pass that goes above the regulation baseline set forth by federal law. (see minimum wage)
Except that the state laws on the minimum wage do not conflict with the Federal one. The question would be has Congress given the FCC sole jurisdiction over internet services regulation in which case state net neutrality laws would conflict with that authority. My guess is if tehy haven't the big ISPs will push for Congress to do so.
If I was selected for a jury the prosecutor had better bring a lot more to the table than that. If that's the best evidence for their case I would acquit. Though I might consider that slightly better than eye witness testimony.
I doubt that is all they would use. It could be used to corroborate other facts in the case as to further prove this person actually committed the crime; for example it could fill in for missing pieces in the surveillance video if it correlated with his actions in the available videos. The defense would offer some alternate explanation and it would be up to jury to decide which facts seem most plausible and thus wether or not to convict. As a side note, he has apparently admitted to the murder.
If you're trading in Canada, you're liable to their laws and they are able to seize related equipment and data with your co-operation or not, and performing a deliberate act with the express intention of removing said access can only be construed as obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on the court order. It's not even "open to interpretation"... it's quite clear that the only reason to use a facility that cuts off the system should the police come knocking is to stop the police seeing things you don't want them to see but that they may well be otherwise entitled to see.
Uber are scumbags because courts like this allow them to be.
While I agree with you, as TFA points out there is a hazy line between obstructing justice and not allowing access to material not in the warrant; as it points out in other cases Uber complied with the warrant after they had a chance to review it. A warrant should not be grounds for a fishing expedition just as a company should be eld accountable if they destroy evidence once they know it may be part of an investigation.
Doesn't mean Uber is not a bad actor but I do not think such things are cut and dry either.
Initial justification is decentralization. That's still valid.
True, but then an initial justification of communism as an economic system was the equitable distribution of property amongst the population to climate the gap between the rich and poor. That may also be still valid but doesn't mean it outweighs the downsides and thus a viable long term solution.
The issue for me is not whether an idea originates locally or federally. The issue is that the better idea should prevail.
Liking good things is not a position that should be marginalized on account of political jurisdiction.
However, one person's good idea is a bad idea to another; and in the US the Federal law trumps state or local laws. Thus, teh tension between Federal supremacy and states' rights.
I cover it in another response, and other likely brought it up. DMCA leaves the ISPs responsible for the customer's copyright infringements if they don't take steps to prevent the activity. They have to do something, or risk legal threat. You may not like the system, but you still have to play by it.
They are caught in the middle. I would simply tell them they are cut off and avoid any issues that may occur from keeping them but messing with they connection. IANAL, but acting in response to the DCMA may not protect them from the results of what they chose to do. It may just be safer to end the contractual relationship.
You seem to be the guy to ask: Was he also involved in the Mercury Program? I know his first actual flight was in Gemini, but I wonder if he might have caught the tail end of Mercury, too?
Provoked by Japanese reporting, though maybe it was bad translating. There were four generations of manned space flight (in America), but at least in translation it came off as something like "He was involved in all three."
He was named an astronaut just as Mercury wound down and made the first manned Gemini flight with Gus Grissom.
I was pivelnged to work at NASA right after ALT and was in meetings with John Young. A pilot's pilot who would make a comment that went right to teh heart of whatever problem we were working on.
They aren't touching the thermostat. They're throttling the internet speed in response to copyright infringement notices. Their terms of use and related documentation likely covers what can happen in regards to copyright infringement. If you don't like that practice, that is a different argument.. one that I would likely side with you on. However, it's up to the customer to understand the policies and what it entails. The ISP isn't targeting smart thermostats or the like, it's only warning the customer of possible issues if their connection is throttled.
While I agree with you, what happens if the infringement claims turn out to be false and as a result of the ISP acting on them someone suffers real harm? The ISP is already aware that their actions could cause the harm, and the were negligent in not ensuring the claims of infringement were valid before taking action. I'm sure their TOS would have them disclaim any liability but it would be interesting to see if it would hold up in court.They should let the copyright owner take action and not get in the middle absent a court order.
Good! If the citizens of California and New York feel these rules are necessary and important they should be able to dictate such rules as they see fit.
That was, once upon a time, the magic of America, applying bottom up legislation allows for what works in specific areas to be applied and for other areas to not be applied.
It's time to go back to an anti-federalist interpretation of the federal government.
You forgot that people are only anti-federalist when the feds do something they don't like, but all for the Feds to exert their power to prevent states form doing something they don't like.