Costco has big record-sized optical disks hanging in their halls proudly showing off that they had 1TB of customer data way back in.... 1997? maybe 1996 it was a long time ago. Costco has been playing this game far longer and Walmart is able to extract weird facts like people buy more strawberry flavored wafer thins than chocolate ones durring hurricanes. That last fact surfaced back in ~2006 so it's not like this is recent. The reason you have to plug in your phone number or rewards card for your rewards savings is that they need at least one piece of customer data to legally track your purchase... everyone does this and if your card number or phone number has not changed in a decade or more they likely have most all the same data as Amazon.
All true, however their are some differences in each which I think are fundamental:
1. Costco has a lot of data but only on their consumers. That gives them insight on their buyers but not the broader market.
2. Walmart has data on what is bought and when and is able to analyze that and has for a long time. They don't necessarily have as much data on the specifics of who is buying since there is no good way to identify who paid cash, which means some percentage of their data is not as granular. More to the point, Walmart can predict what will sell and how to best combine displays to sell more, Amazon is looking at predicting what individuals will buy before they even know they will buy, based on their data.
3. Loyalty programs are a good tool for tracking, but again not all shoppers use one.
4. None of them know how much, and to who at what price, competitors are selling like Amazon does since they handle the sales transaction. Of course, their information is just a subset of the broader sales since they don not have all the sales information, only that that goes through their system.
Amazon has much better information on who buys what and when, what their competitors on the site are selling and to who for what price. I'm not saying other companies don't have a lot of useful data, they just don't have as much information in theirs as Amazon. Amazon knows immediately when a competitor's price changes and the impact on sales. They also have data on a much broader array of products.
I am not calling for Amazon to be regulated or that what they do with consumer information is not the normal; just answering the OP's question of how is Amazon different from what others do? In my opinion, it is the breadth and depth of their information that sets them apart. That information is quite valuable, not only to Amazon but to other companies as well.
Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly.
And other businesses can't do this? Really? Hint: every business does this to the greatest extent possible. And computers have made "greatest extent possible" a lot broader than 40 years ago. Or made it faster, at least....
As I said, it's the scope and breadth of the data they have that makes them different. It spans product lines, regions, geographies, customer demographics, etc. they have far more information than most businesses. I agree most do that but Amazon's scope and reach is much larger. Walmart may come close but it is primarily US Centric and doesn't have nearly the customer specific data of Amazon. For example, if you start shipping to a new address and stop at the old Amazon can surmise you've probably moved. If you start shipping to a second address, it might be a friend or family member that moved but still uses your prime account. If you ship somewhat often and the zip code has a university and Amazon has shipped to similar street addresses before they can surmise you are at university; and verify that with purchases such as textbook rentals. Sign up for Amazon Student and you've told them you are student. Most other businesses don't have that data available.
Is it just the United States that suffers from a non-functioning phone system?
Seriously, the US phone system is so over run with SPAM phone calls that land lines are useless and the problem is now destroying the cell system.
Do people in other countries suffer from the problem?
Anecdotally, I get very few spam / scam calls. I do get solicitations but those are from organizations where I regularly donate and thus do not mind them. Most of the spam I get is political calls during election season; and the occasional tech support / credit card rate scams.I work is slow I'll often play with the scammers for a while out of boredom. There's nothing like getting one to start screaming at you and laughing back at them.
...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?
Say, Kirkland cashews and batteries, Win-Dixie bread and cleaning wipes, Kennmore appliances. And many more brands in europe, from retailers as diverse as Carrefour, aldi and "El corte ingles"
All big retail chains have white/house brands that compete with all the other brands. And all retailers use their retail/POS data to know what items move and which one would benefit them most if they decided to enter with a white brand...
So? what's different in this case?
It's the depth and breadth of Amazon data that's different. Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly. Finally, they also can look at the consumer buying habits to price discriminate. All of that is not avaiable to those on the marketplace, as far as I know. Sellers could follow Amazon's lead but smaller ones may not be able to match Amazon and stay in business.
Can somebody enlighten a foreigner to the use of this license, embossed or digital?
In Europe you just need a copy for the IRS and one for the boss to get your free extra week of vacation, that's about it.
Also some Unions give out a couple of hundred bucks for their members who get married.
Do you need it for other stuff too?
Often it is needed if you want to change names after marriage, prove you are married for benefits, apply for US citizenship, etc. There are lots of reasons you may need one and a digital copy won't be of any use.
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away?
meant to add: you can get industrial displays with remotes. A lot of the screens you see in stores are displays. I've seen them in the 1500 - 2000k range for 65" displays.
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away?
Leave it on and turn of the video source. Most monitors will sleep when the video input is removed and come back on when it comes back.
Yes the easiest option to not connect the smart TV to the network.
Of course, but the OP wanted a solution without the apps. I agree simply not connecting is the best solution to avoid tracking, but if you also then want to add your own apps your stuck so you have to have an external video source you can control.
If it's 200 on a 1200 appliance, I'll gladly give yoi 1500 to just give me a dumb panel and fuck off.
So here is the deal. Would you be willing to pay $300 after the purchase for an update that makes it a dumb TV? You might, but how many people would feel ripped off if a manufacturer offered that? they'd feel like they are paying to remove features; instead of paying not to track and covering the manufacturer's subsidy from the apps. I think a similar problem would occur if that offered two models, a smart TV and higher priced dumb one people would wonder why pay more for less "features?"
You can get a dump panel; it's called a monitor. Just add your own video source. They are more expensive than a similar TV but they are available.
Most everything that offers broadband to your home comes with TV service bundled. And it actually costs more to not get the TV service. I can't understand how these services expect to compete. The Koolaide is delicious, but asking people to pay $30 / month for something they already have?
It really depends on the type of service. In some cases, you can bundle TV and cable for less for lower teired speeds the bundle eliminates the data cap. However, at higher tiers there is no cap and the cost of internet alone is equal to the cost of lower speed internet plus basic TV. If you add in TV the costs are about equal for TV + Internet or Internet plus streaming service. One advantage of the later is one box to handle TV plus NAS stored content and additional streaming apps instead of 2 boxes and remotes; as well as the ablity to watch shows remotely via a phone or tablet; all without additional outlet fees.
Facebook, the world's largest social network, wouldn't disclose the financial nature of the agreements, but said they're meant to give the Facebook "the best" data mining opportunity right after opening the box.
I don't see that he exposed any real problems at all. He falsified data and then got it published. What does that expose?
The problem I see is the lack of peer review of the raw data that supported the conclusions. The challenge is one of time; peer reviewers do not have the time to devote on repeating the analysis to check the conclusions, their grad students are too busy crunching numbers for them to put them to use on someone else's research.The underlying assumption is reviewers do not falsify data; something that has been proven false a number of times besides in this case. As a result, bogus studies slip by; even preposterous ones such as these. Dressing up junk with long fancy words and scientific sounding terms to make it seem true is nothing new, crackpots have been doing that for years with their various ridiculous claims and theories; in this case it just happened to be some academics and others with an axe to grind.
I would think if any of them submitted another paper to a respected journal they're likely to get it turned down, even if it represents real research, based on their past actions. What journal or peer reviewer wants to risk being caught up in their next stunt?
You can't seriously argue that his behavior was ethical, he knowingly published false papers and deliberately misled people. That he did so to reveal a major problem in the industry is beneficial to us, but does not excuse his behavior.
That is the the whole greater good argument - did his actions, which if taken by themselves be unethical, perform a greater good by exposing problems with publishing in the academic community. It would be interesting to see more information and facts surrounding the case, not just the WaTimes' article,; especially since the WaTimes has its own bias which may cloud its reporting.
This doesn't really say that much about the overall veracity of published articles or inherent bias, as it is just one data point. More interesting is if others have done the same thing with the same results, i.e. publication.
The key word is path. We're not there yet, and i'll be a decade at least, IMHOP, before batteries play a significant role in peaking or transportation. I do agree it is the future, the question is how fast and what companies will survive?
BMW Porsche etc are very proud of their performance engines. Toyota, Honda are proud of their smooth ultra reliable, efficient engines. They are significantly ahead in these areas. It is their crown jewels, so to speak. Making a transition where the crown jewels needed to be thrown away would be very very hard for them. Almost like Kodak having to give up on chemical film technology.
I disagree. Porsche and BMW are looking at Evs as the future for their vehicles; especially given the EU's push to eliminate ICEs. They have beed developing hybrids as well as Evs as interim steps. My thought is they will make the transition just fine and produce EVs that are worthy of their performance heritage. Given the performance advantages of an electric motor in terms of acceleration, coupled with their experience building well handling cars (trailing throttle oversteer be damned) it's not much of a stretch to see them having Evs that are every bit as good as their ICE vehicles.
I doubt Toyota or Honda will have much trouble either, given their engineering and manufacturing expertise and experiments with EVs..
Glorified coach builders like Jaguar, (it actually started out as a coach builder), might transition better. If the current chiefs with large ICE empire under them keep insinuating and shoehorning their division into every product the company plans, that company will die. If the top management is strong and sensible and allow the dead technology to be by passed, that company will survive, thrive.
That's true of any company, no matter the industry. I'm not so sure about Jaguar if they use Lucas electricals. Kodak died because they thought their film expertise was paramount to the customer, not the ability to view images they took and thus underestimated the impact digital would have outside of their professional market. I miss their old, beautiful slide film but my dSLR is much better for most uses, so my film camera is now gathering dust.
To me, the biggest drawback to EV adoption is psychological, not technological; i.e. people are worried about perceived range limitations. Realistically, most people only do maybe a couple of trips a year where the range isn't enough and thus don't see an EV as a viable ICE alternative. Ponce charging between cities and at vacation locations such as hotels becomes more available, that will go away but right now it is a major negative in consumer minds. As a result, demand is low so few are produced and costs are high relative to other options, and some things, such as vans, are not available. That will change but not quickly.
That is why, however, I think semi truck EVs have more short term potential. Trucking companies can haveknown routes and plan for recharging; such as recharging at a warehouse after delivering to stores, or putting charging stations at select store locations to chareg while off loading. WalMart, UPS, FedEx with known travel networks, could do that. It also addresses driver shortages as, IIRC, a CDL is not needed to drive a Tesla truck, so there are many more potential drivers. If it's operating costs are less than a conventional truck I'd expect to see wider fleet adoption; with truck stops adding charging stations to replace pumps as demand picks up.
You are right. I was careless, in using HP instead of acceleration times.
Even then there are cheaper alternatives that accelerate faster and significantly cheaper cars that are almost as fast so that the average driver will never notice the difference.
Anyway BEV is a better product than ICEV.
Better is relative. It depends on one's needs and desires. I think Tesla is on to something with the EV truck.
If Tesla does not make the better one, others will. That is is the important thing.
True, and many manufacturers are looking to entire the EV market; it will be interesting to see how it will play out for Tesla and them.
Batteries are replacing peak load electricity generation plants. Battery cars are replacing gasoline cars. We are on the right path.
The key word is path. We're not there yet, and i'll be a decade at least, IMHOP, before batteries play a significant role in peaking or transportation. I do agree it is the future, the question is how fast and what companies will survive?
None of them can beat the X in acceleration, cornering or handling.
You used HP as the criteria, and a number of cars beat Tesla in that for less money. An EV due to the motor's torque characteristics will accelerate faster than some ICE vehicles; but even a Mustang beats the 3 in 0 - 60 times. Even the Dodge Demon beats the P100D in the quarter mile at about 2/3 the base price. The 2018 Mercedes-AMG GLC63 S Coupe is just a tick slower on the 1/4 mile for less than half the price of the P100D. Tesla's handling is nothing to right home about based on reviews, not bad but certainly not a track car. Tesla makes a decent car but right now it is not really a replacement for drivers looking for a performance car. That doesn't make it a bad car, just that there are many alternatives that offer similar performance for less money. It's all about what a drive wants.
Tesla is cheaper than any ICE car in the > 450 HP range. Model S and X. Model 3 LR is cheaper than any car in the 290 HP+ range. Model 3 SR will be cheaper than any car in the 220HP+ range.
That's not quite true, based on the prices of 44K for a 3MR and S at 76K, without the autoplilot option, when ordered from Tesla. The Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, amongst others all have 300+HP models for a lot less than the Tesla's 30K base price. They and the Corvette, as well as Mercedes - AMG, Jaguar and Alfa, have have 500HP+ models less than the base X and S.
Anyway, I can guarantee that you are wrong about the other guy being wrong. This is science.
Perhaps, but audiophiles arguing over meaningless specifications long predates the digital era. Science and facts never stopped a good measurebation session.
They're still a PRISM partner with the US Government which means they are completely compromised and your data isn't safe at all.
Why does anyone even buy these fucking advertisements?
Because they want to believe.
Did everyone already forget about the Ed Snowden leaks?
Who?
Are my fellow countrymen really that insipid, thick, and forgetful?
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP? The genesis behind net neutrality is to ensure fair access to monopoly pipes. Can a virtual ISP have a monopoly pipe?
Good question. I think the key difference is not in the tiered speed levels and pricing but how data is treated at each tier. If all the data is treated the same way, no matter the type of ISP, with no degradation of level of service based on the data type or source then they are still providing fair access and there is no net neutrality issue. Many ISPs have tiered speed level pricing, giving consumers a choice of which level meets their needs and budget. As long as they don't discriminate within tiers they are maintaining net neutrality.
As for bt as a virtual ISP, I lean towards the application side. They are not providing the pipes, but facilitating access to specific data. It's no different than any other site that streams data to an end user over someone else's pipes, just that bt is aggregating data from multiple locations instead of storing it in a location they control.
Another failure of "education". Worthwhile education allows you to challenge, verify and, if needed, adjust your beliefs. Yes, it is hard getting there and yes, most people generally thought to be "educated" are in fact not.
While I agree with you, deep seated beliefs, even if they are wrong, are hard to change. When presented with facts counter to those beliefs people tend to discount them. It’s not a matter of education but rather human nature. A recent article on this topic is https://www.npr.org/2017/12/25...
I worked with someone who believed in homepathy and the power of crystals to cure diseases. Her attitude was "So what if there is no proof it works; what if it does and everyone is wrong?" She was well educated, and not ill, but for whatever reason would not accept any data that conflicted with her belief. That is in line with a recent study I heard about that shoiws presenting data that conflicts with a person's viewpopint just hardens their position rather than convinces them to change it.
I've found it most useful to connect to old coworkers or friends. Mots of the random connect requests I get are from people wanting to sell something. The open groups are pretty useless, as with the rest of the internet usually one or too people arguing with everyone and posting long TL;DR screeds. The few job openings I was contacted for quickly went away when I told them my going rate; they wanted years of experience at newbie prices. I've learned to start conversations with "To avoid wasting both our times my rate is... Does that work for you?"
Mostly it's a way for MS to try to sell more crap - such as "X viewed your profile. Pay to unlock all the names" or "See how you compare with xxx for this position for only YY$."
what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones.
Tenure? What tenure? If it's not already dead then it's certainly on life support these days. Besides, until the external sources of funding get with the program, it won't change. Let's say a university does that it's great except now any academic who follows through now has their career tied to that university and that one alone.
Basically you are casually stating that other people should damage their careers over this. Perhaps they should but they won't, because that's not how people work.
While I agree overall, I think you missed my point. University research consortiums currently exist to improve member organizations ability to attract grant money. If those universities wanted, they have the resources, academic talent and prestige to create journals every bit as prestigious as the current pay ones. As you point out, many of their staff already peer review and sit on editorial boards of the pay journals. Many of them already publish a number of respected journals.
There would be no damage to careers since the journals would be as respected as the pay ones, since they have the same peer reviewers and editorial boards as the paid ones had; they are simply replacing the publisher with their own resources.
Personally, I think it is simply easier to live with the current system and bemoan its shortcomings than to actually change it to one with more open access. You probably couldn't get a bunch universities to agree on the journal's name, let alone how to setup the administrative portion to actually publish it.
Ultimately, changing the rules to allow the original authors to make the paper available after a short time period or even from day 1 and retain copyright, may be the only realistic solution.
Scientists in other fields have much higher costs on the whole than mathematics. They means they need grants for equipment, supplies, technicians and so on. That comes from the fnuding bodies. The more impact your work has the more you lkely you are to get funded.
And publishing in high profile journals is a good way to get that impact.
Funding is clearly the lifeblood of any university. Getting funding is why major universities create research consortiums to improve their chances of getting it.
Publishing in prestigious journals is key to getting and maintaining a reputation. However, major universities have the resources and infrastructure in place to publish their own journals, and many already do. Right now, the costs of publishing in paywalled journals is insignificant compared to the benefits; the question is do universities want to wrest control of their research papers from the publishers? They already provide the academic resources (reviewers, editorial boards) so the most important part of ensuring quality exists; what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones. Academia has the ability to significantly reduce the power of those journals, the question is do they want to?
Slashdot Mirror
Costco has big record-sized optical disks hanging in their halls proudly showing off that they had 1TB of customer data way back in .... 1997? maybe 1996 it was a long time ago. Costco has been playing this game far longer and Walmart is able to extract weird facts like people buy more strawberry flavored wafer thins than chocolate ones durring hurricanes. That last fact surfaced back in ~2006 so it's not like this is recent. The reason you have to plug in your phone number or rewards card for your rewards savings is that they need at least one piece of customer data to legally track your purchase... everyone does this and if your card number or phone number has not changed in a decade or more they likely have most all the same data as Amazon.
All true, however their are some differences in each which I think are fundamental:
1. Costco has a lot of data but only on their consumers. That gives them insight on their buyers but not the broader market.
2. Walmart has data on what is bought and when and is able to analyze that and has for a long time. They don't necessarily have as much data on the specifics of who is buying since there is no good way to identify who paid cash, which means some percentage of their data is not as granular. More to the point, Walmart can predict what will sell and how to best combine displays to sell more, Amazon is looking at predicting what individuals will buy before they even know they will buy, based on their data.
3. Loyalty programs are a good tool for tracking, but again not all shoppers use one.
4. None of them know how much, and to who at what price, competitors are selling like Amazon does since they handle the sales transaction. Of course, their information is just a subset of the broader sales since they don not have all the sales information, only that that goes through their system.
Amazon has much better information on who buys what and when, what their competitors on the site are selling and to who for what price. I'm not saying other companies don't have a lot of useful data, they just don't have as much information in theirs as Amazon. Amazon knows immediately when a competitor's price changes and the impact on sales. They also have data on a much broader array of products.
I am not calling for Amazon to be regulated or that what they do with consumer information is not the normal; just answering the OP's question of how is Amazon different from what others do? In my opinion, it is the breadth and depth of their information that sets them apart. That information is quite valuable, not only to Amazon but to other companies as well.
And other businesses can't do this? Really? Hint: every business does this to the greatest extent possible. And computers have made "greatest extent possible" a lot broader than 40 years ago. Or made it faster, at least....
As I said, it's the scope and breadth of the data they have that makes them different. It spans product lines, regions, geographies, customer demographics, etc. they have far more information than most businesses. I agree most do that but Amazon's scope and reach is much larger. Walmart may come close but it is primarily US Centric and doesn't have nearly the customer specific data of Amazon. For example, if you start shipping to a new address and stop at the old Amazon can surmise you've probably moved. If you start shipping to a second address, it might be a friend or family member that moved but still uses your prime account. If you ship somewhat often and the zip code has a university and Amazon has shipped to similar street addresses before they can surmise you are at university; and verify that with purchases such as textbook rentals. Sign up for Amazon Student and you've told them you are student. Most other businesses don't have that data available.
Is it just the United States that suffers from a non-functioning phone system?
Seriously, the US phone system is so over run with SPAM phone calls that land lines are useless and the problem is now destroying the cell system.
Do people in other countries suffer from the problem?
Anecdotally, I get very few spam / scam calls. I do get solicitations but those are from organizations where I regularly donate and thus do not mind them. Most of the spam I get is political calls during election season; and the occasional tech support / credit card rate scams.I work is slow I'll often play with the scammers for a while out of boredom. There's nothing like getting one to start screaming at you and laughing back at them.
...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?
Say, Kirkland cashews and batteries, Win-Dixie bread and cleaning wipes, Kennmore appliances. And many more brands in europe, from retailers as diverse as Carrefour, aldi and "El corte ingles"
All big retail chains have white/house brands that compete with all the other brands. And all retailers use their retail/POS data to know what items move and which one would benefit them most if they decided to enter with a white brand...
So? what's different in this case?
It's the depth and breadth of Amazon data that's different. Not only does it have sales data it can parse to determone what to sell it also can get a pretty good idea of price is for the item as well as the demand easticity to set price to get the most profit. They also know what others charge and sales numbers and can move their prices accordingly. Finally, they also can look at the consumer buying habits to price discriminate. All of that is not avaiable to those on the marketplace, as far as I know. Sellers could follow Amazon's lead but smaller ones may not be able to match Amazon and stay in business.
Can somebody enlighten a foreigner to the use of this license, embossed or digital?
In Europe you just need a copy for the IRS and one for the boss to get your free extra week of vacation, that's about it.
Also some Unions give out a couple of hundred bucks for their members who get married.
Do you need it for other stuff too?
Often it is needed if you want to change names after marriage, prove you are married for benefits, apply for US citizenship, etc. There are lots of reasons you may need one and a digital copy won't be of any use.
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away?
meant to add: you can get industrial displays with remotes. A lot of the screens you see in stores are displays. I've seen them in the 1500 - 2000k range for 65" displays.
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away?
Leave it on and turn of the video source. Most monitors will sleep when the video input is removed and come back on when it comes back.
Yes the easiest option to not connect the smart TV to the network.
Of course, but the OP wanted a solution without the apps. I agree simply not connecting is the best solution to avoid tracking, but if you also then want to add your own apps your stuck so you have to have an external video source you can control.
How much money DO thwy make after purchase?
If it's 200 on a 1200 appliance, I'll gladly give yoi 1500 to just give me a dumb panel and fuck off.
So here is the deal. Would you be willing to pay $300 after the purchase for an update that makes it a dumb TV? You might, but how many people would feel ripped off if a manufacturer offered that? they'd feel like they are paying to remove features; instead of paying not to track and covering the manufacturer's subsidy from the apps. I think a similar problem would occur if that offered two models, a smart TV and higher priced dumb one people would wonder why pay more for less "features?"
You can get a dump panel; it's called a monitor. Just add your own video source. They are more expensive than a similar TV but they are available.
Most everything that offers broadband to your home comes with TV service bundled. And it actually costs more to not get the TV service. I can't understand how these services expect to compete. The Koolaide is delicious, but asking people to pay $30 / month for something they already have?
It really depends on the type of service. In some cases, you can bundle TV and cable for less for lower teired speeds the bundle eliminates the data cap. However, at higher tiers there is no cap and the cost of internet alone is equal to the cost of lower speed internet plus basic TV. If you add in TV the costs are about equal for TV + Internet or Internet plus streaming service. One advantage of the later is one box to handle TV plus NAS stored content and additional streaming apps instead of 2 boxes and remotes; as well as the ablity to watch shows remotely via a phone or tablet; all without additional outlet fees.
Facebook, the world's largest social network, wouldn't disclose the financial nature of the agreements, but said they're meant to give the Facebook "the best" data mining opportunity right after opening the box.
I don't see that he exposed any real problems at all. He falsified data and then got it published. What does that expose?
The problem I see is the lack of peer review of the raw data that supported the conclusions. The challenge is one of time; peer reviewers do not have the time to devote on repeating the analysis to check the conclusions, their grad students are too busy crunching numbers for them to put them to use on someone else's research.The underlying assumption is reviewers do not falsify data; something that has been proven false a number of times besides in this case. As a result, bogus studies slip by; even preposterous ones such as these. Dressing up junk with long fancy words and scientific sounding terms to make it seem true is nothing new, crackpots have been doing that for years with their various ridiculous claims and theories; in this case it just happened to be some academics and others with an axe to grind.
I would think if any of them submitted another paper to a respected journal they're likely to get it turned down, even if it represents real research, based on their past actions. What journal or peer reviewer wants to risk being caught up in their next stunt?
You can't seriously argue that his behavior was ethical, he knowingly published false papers and deliberately misled people. That he did so to reveal a major problem in the industry is beneficial to us, but does not excuse his behavior.
That is the the whole greater good argument - did his actions, which if taken by themselves be unethical, perform a greater good by exposing problems with publishing in the academic community. It would be interesting to see more information and facts surrounding the case, not just the WaTimes' article,; especially since the WaTimes has its own bias which may cloud its reporting.
This doesn't really say that much about the overall veracity of published articles or inherent bias, as it is just one data point. More interesting is if others have done the same thing with the same results, i.e. publication.
The key word is path. We're not there yet, and i'll be a decade at least, IMHOP, before batteries play a significant role in peaking or transportation. I do agree it is the future, the question is how fast and what companies will survive?
BMW Porsche etc are very proud of their performance engines. Toyota, Honda are proud of their smooth ultra reliable, efficient engines. They are significantly ahead in these areas. It is their crown jewels, so to speak. Making a transition where the crown jewels needed to be thrown away would be very very hard for them. Almost like Kodak having to give up on chemical film technology.
I disagree. Porsche and BMW are looking at Evs as the future for their vehicles; especially given the EU's push to eliminate ICEs. They have beed developing hybrids as well as Evs as interim steps. My thought is they will make the transition just fine and produce EVs that are worthy of their performance heritage. Given the performance advantages of an electric motor in terms of acceleration, coupled with their experience building well handling cars (trailing throttle oversteer be damned) it's not much of a stretch to see them having Evs that are every bit as good as their ICE vehicles.
I doubt Toyota or Honda will have much trouble either, given their engineering and manufacturing expertise and experiments with EVs..
Glorified coach builders like Jaguar, (it actually started out as a coach builder), might transition better. If the current chiefs with large ICE empire under them keep insinuating and shoehorning their division into every product the company plans, that company will die. If the top management is strong and sensible and allow the dead technology to be by passed, that company will survive, thrive.
That's true of any company, no matter the industry. I'm not so sure about Jaguar if they use Lucas electricals. Kodak died because they thought their film expertise was paramount to the customer, not the ability to view images they took and thus underestimated the impact digital would have outside of their professional market. I miss their old, beautiful slide film but my dSLR is much better for most uses, so my film camera is now gathering dust.
To me, the biggest drawback to EV adoption is psychological, not technological; i.e. people are worried about perceived range limitations. Realistically, most people only do maybe a couple of trips a year where the range isn't enough and thus don't see an EV as a viable ICE alternative. Ponce charging between cities and at vacation locations such as hotels becomes more available, that will go away but right now it is a major negative in consumer minds. As a result, demand is low so few are produced and costs are high relative to other options, and some things, such as vans, are not available. That will change but not quickly.
That is why, however, I think semi truck EVs have more short term potential. Trucking companies can haveknown routes and plan for recharging; such as recharging at a warehouse after delivering to stores, or putting charging stations at select store locations to chareg while off loading. WalMart, UPS, FedEx with known travel networks, could do that. It also addresses driver shortages as, IIRC, a CDL is not needed to drive a Tesla truck, so there are many more potential drivers. If it's operating costs are less than a conventional truck I'd expect to see wider fleet adoption; with truck stops adding charging stations to replace pumps as demand picks up.
You are right. I was careless, in using HP instead of acceleration times.
Even then there are cheaper alternatives that accelerate faster and significantly cheaper cars that are almost as fast so that the average driver will never notice the difference.
Anyway BEV is a better product than ICEV.
Better is relative. It depends on one's needs and desires. I think Tesla is on to something with the EV truck.
If Tesla does not make the better one, others will. That is is the important thing.
True, and many manufacturers are looking to entire the EV market; it will be interesting to see how it will play out for Tesla and them.
Batteries are replacing peak load electricity generation plants. Battery cars are replacing gasoline cars. We are on the right path.
The key word is path. We're not there yet, and i'll be a decade at least, IMHOP, before batteries play a significant role in peaking or transportation. I do agree it is the future, the question is how fast and what companies will survive?
None of them can beat the X in acceleration, cornering or handling.
You used HP as the criteria, and a number of cars beat Tesla in that for less money. An EV due to the motor's torque characteristics will accelerate faster than some ICE vehicles; but even a Mustang beats the 3 in 0 - 60 times. Even the Dodge Demon beats the P100D in the quarter mile at about 2/3 the base price. The 2018 Mercedes-AMG GLC63 S Coupe is just a tick slower on the 1/4 mile for less than half the price of the P100D. Tesla's handling is nothing to right home about based on reviews, not bad but certainly not a track car. Tesla makes a decent car but right now it is not really a replacement for drivers looking for a performance car. That doesn't make it a bad car, just that there are many alternatives that offer similar performance for less money. It's all about what a drive wants.
Tesla is cheaper than any ICE car in the > 450 HP range. Model S and X. Model 3 LR is cheaper than any car in the 290 HP+ range. Model 3 SR will be cheaper than any car in the 220HP+ range.
That's not quite true, based on the prices of 44K for a 3MR and S at 76K, without the autoplilot option, when ordered from Tesla. The Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, amongst others all have 300+HP models for a lot less than the Tesla's 30K base price. They and the Corvette, as well as Mercedes - AMG, Jaguar and Alfa, have have 500HP+ models less than the base X and S.
Anyway, I can guarantee that you are wrong about the other guy being wrong. This is science.
Perhaps, but audiophiles arguing over meaningless specifications long predates the digital era. Science and facts never stopped a good measurebation session.
They're still a PRISM partner with the US Government which means they are completely compromised and your data isn't safe at all. Why does anyone even buy these fucking advertisements?
Because they want to believe.
Did everyone already forget about the Ed Snowden leaks?
Who?
Are my fellow countrymen really that insipid, thick, and forgetful?
Yes
MultiChoice has clearly taken notice and has called for Netflix to be regulated.
Unless it can be used to limit competition. Then they like it.
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP? The genesis behind net neutrality is to ensure fair access to monopoly pipes. Can a virtual ISP have a monopoly pipe?
Good question. I think the key difference is not in the tiered speed levels and pricing but how data is treated at each tier. If all the data is treated the same way, no matter the type of ISP, with no degradation of level of service based on the data type or source then they are still providing fair access and there is no net neutrality issue. Many ISPs have tiered speed level pricing, giving consumers a choice of which level meets their needs and budget. As long as they don't discriminate within tiers they are maintaining net neutrality.
As for bt as a virtual ISP, I lean towards the application side. They are not providing the pipes, but facilitating access to specific data. It's no different than any other site that streams data to an end user over someone else's pipes, just that bt is aggregating data from multiple locations instead of storing it in a location they control.
Another failure of "education". Worthwhile education allows you to challenge, verify and, if needed, adjust your beliefs. Yes, it is hard getting there and yes, most people generally thought to be "educated" are in fact not.
While I agree with you, deep seated beliefs, even if they are wrong, are hard to change. When presented with facts counter to those beliefs people tend to discount them. It’s not a matter of education but rather human nature. A recent article on this topic is https://www.npr.org/2017/12/25...
I worked with someone who believed in homepathy and the power of crystals to cure diseases. Her attitude was "So what if there is no proof it works; what if it does and everyone is wrong?" She was well educated, and not ill, but for whatever reason would not accept any data that conflicted with her belief. That is in line with a recent study I heard about that shoiws presenting data that conflicts with a person's viewpopint just hardens their position rather than convinces them to change it.
I've found it most useful to connect to old coworkers or friends. Mots of the random connect requests I get are from people wanting to sell something. The open groups are pretty useless, as with the rest of the internet usually one or too people arguing with everyone and posting long TL;DR screeds. The few job openings I was contacted for quickly went away when I told them my going rate; they wanted years of experience at newbie prices. I've learned to start conversations with "To avoid wasting both our times my rate is... Does that work for you?"
Mostly it's a way for MS to try to sell more crap - such as "X viewed your profile. Pay to unlock all the names" or "See how you compare with xxx for this position for only YY$."
what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones.
Tenure? What tenure? If it's not already dead then it's certainly on life support these days. Besides, until the external sources of funding get with the program, it won't change. Let's say a university does that it's great except now any academic who follows through now has their career tied to that university and that one alone.
Basically you are casually stating that other people should damage their careers over this. Perhaps they should but they won't, because that's not how people work.
While I agree overall, I think you missed my point. University research consortiums currently exist to improve member organizations ability to attract grant money. If those universities wanted, they have the resources, academic talent and prestige to create journals every bit as prestigious as the current pay ones. As you point out, many of their staff already peer review and sit on editorial boards of the pay journals. Many of them already publish a number of respected journals.
There would be no damage to careers since the journals would be as respected as the pay ones, since they have the same peer reviewers and editorial boards as the paid ones had; they are simply replacing the publisher with their own resources.
Personally, I think it is simply easier to live with the current system and bemoan its shortcomings than to actually change it to one with more open access. You probably couldn't get a bunch universities to agree on the journal's name, let alone how to setup the administrative portion to actually publish it.
Ultimately, changing the rules to allow the original authors to make the paper available after a short time period or even from day 1 and retain copyright, may be the only realistic solution.
Scientists in other fields have much higher costs on the whole than mathematics. They means they need grants for equipment, supplies, technicians and so on. That comes from the fnuding bodies. The more impact your work has the more you lkely you are to get funded.
And publishing in high profile journals is a good way to get that impact.
Funding is clearly the lifeblood of any university. Getting funding is why major universities create research consortiums to improve their chances of getting it.
Publishing in prestigious journals is key to getting and maintaining a reputation. However, major universities have the resources and infrastructure in place to publish their own journals, and many already do. Right now, the costs of publishing in paywalled journals is insignificant compared to the benefits; the question is do universities want to wrest control of their research papers from the publishers? They already provide the academic resources (reviewers, editorial boards) so the most important part of ensuring quality exists; what needs to happen is for universities to decide their own publications are as valuable, or more, for tenure decisions as the current pay for play ones. Academia has the ability to significantly reduce the power of those journals, the question is do they want to?