Congratulations for not reading my post, dipshit, because it covers exactly fucking that.
Heres a little summary for you, because it seems you cant read large explanations - the negative number doesnt necessarily remain static when the production chain can be optimised for volume, so it wont always be "negative number multiplied by large number".
And if you doubt the facts of the matter, then you are doubting every single aircraft manufacturer (and both Airbus and Boeing are independently profitable), every single car manufacturer (you think that the first cars GM makes for a model are unit profitable? Think again...), every single electronics manufacturer out there (you think the first new model iPhones off the production line are per unit profitable? Think again....).
Practically no production line in the world is per unit profitable from the moment it starts, every single one has a ramp up and its that ramp up where the revenue goes from negative to positive.
Its basic fucking manufacturing economics. Which you fail at.
If you look at past Presidential results, G W Bush and Obama's victories were resoundingly pedestrian (with their opposition getting electoral votes like 266 or 173) compared to Reagans landslide of 525 electoral votes to 13.
The margin does matter, not because it overtly means anything, but it changes political landscapes. If the Hillary-Trump battle ends up with a narrow margin for a Clinton victory, it means that Trump didnt need to do a lot more to win and that his style of politics *works*, so future campaigns can be run in the same way. Trump needs to get annihilated in order for the Republicans to actually enact meaningful change to guarantee they dont have another Trump style candidate.
Canada uses the same voting system as the UK, but we have nearly double the number of voters than Canada, we don't require *any* ID to be shown to vote (you get asked your name and street address, thats it - its illegal for the officer to ask for ID) and the UK still has a near zero rate of election fraud. Its so low that individual cases of people turning up to vote and finding their name has already been crossed off make the national news.
Take an example from the aviation industry - you have a lot of up front investment to design an aircraft, build the test aircraft and carry out the testing.
You are typically north of $15Billion in debt on the program before the first aircraft has been delivered.
The problem is, that first aircraft delivered adds to the debt, it doesn't decrease it. Woah, I hear you say, why would you hand an aircraft over that costs you more to make than a customer buys it for? Simple really, because the customer wants a decent price and won't pay any more, and you are banking on that in order to sell lots of these aircraft.
It gets worse than the first aircraft, as the first few hundred off the production line will actually cost you more than you receive from a customer. The design, development and testing of the aircraft has already been paid for, so whats adding to the debt now?
Inefficiencies in the production chain, thats whats adding to the debt - the production chain ramp up costs money, and its burned on those first few hundred aircraft
But with each aircraft that is delivered, the cost of production goes down as the production chain improves, parts get cheaper to produce, parts are produced quicker etc etc etc.
So Boeing and Airbus count on two points in any aircrafts production life - the moment an airframe breaks even on production costs, and the moment the program pays back its investment. The first is called the production break even, and the second is called the program break even. All planes delivered after the program break even is profit, so for a market of 1,000 aircraft, you generally aim for production break even to be no later than 300, and program break even to be no more than 600, and then you sit back and let the money roll in.
Pricing aircraft before the production break even to eliminate the concept of production break even doesn't work, because no one will buy those early airframes if they cost more than the late airframes, so you *have* to eat that cost in order to have a product which you can sell at a profit later on.
Occasionally airframe manufacturers cock it up - Airbus achieved production break even on the A380 but will never achieve program break even, and Boeing currently wont achieve program break even on the 787 even with the current order book of 1,100 aircraft - they need another 300 or so on top of that to clear the program back log of debt.
But then you have cash cows like the A320, A330, 737, 767 and 777 all of which achieved production and program break evens early on in their lives, and went on to sell massive amounts of airframes at profitable levels. For example, the A320s production break even was set at 400 airframes - its now past 7,100 aircraft delivered, so thats the trade off.
So Musk and Tesla know they have to bring the cost of producing the cars down - the only way to do that is to actually produce them. R&D is only going to get you so far on the costs, you need a production line which can be streamlined and self lubricates, so you need to take a loss on the product until the production line is cost effective.
So selling it cheap but making it up in volume does work - the "common folly" only comes into play when the cost of producing the volume stays static at the same cost of producing one item, which it does not do. This is why the gigafactory concept is so beneficial here - Musk puts one on each continent and pushes battery production to levels never seen before, levels which are orders of magnitude more than current levels, the cost of the car doesnt go down but the cost of producing a core component of the car does down dramatically.
Drives designed for RAID use typically have different firmware which react differently to issues - RAID friendly drives react quicker to failures, meaning they are less likely to fail the RAID over correctable errors. Put a drive not intended for RAID use in an array and you will see more failures over drive level correctable errors.
Archival disks are one of those drives you will see this issue with.
They still exist, pretty much every business still has a landline, and now any passer by in the street is almost guaranteed to have a phone. I still see no reason to make this about a terrorist attack or anything else - its private property, the only right that exists here is the right for that owner to do this.
This is the UK, those lawsuits dont happen here because we have common fucking sense - you have no inherent human right to make or receive phone calls on private property, so there is no implicit consent needed. Faraday cage or not, missing someones death or your kid getting knocked down gives you no grounds to sue the property owner because you couldnt make or receive a phone call.
How the *fuck* did we function during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s without mobile phones and *active* terrorist cells on the UK mainland carrying out IRA attacks?
Somehow, someone still managed to call the police without a mobile phone...
"But what if there is a terrorist attack!?!" has rapidly become the new "wont somebody think of the children?!?" in ridiculous arguments either for or against something.
Thank you for repeating your "demand", but you again fail to explain *why* Microsoft should contribute to Wine - "because they should" is not an arguable reason. And Wine being "meaningful" is a matter of opinion - its not meaningful to Microsoft, so why should they contribute to it?
ChakraCore furthers a lot of Microsofts goal - fully expect a UWP runtime for Linux in the near future, with stuff like Skype etc running the same code across all platforms. How is that not a goal that is being furthered?
And your opinion of.Net pretty much shows that you cam be discounted entirely from any adult discussion on this topic. You are basically saying "no one uses or gives a shit about Linux. Apart from the millions of people that use and give a shit about Linux, but Im going to ignore that because it doesnt fit with my view."
Why should Microsoft contribute to a project that doesnt further its goals? Mono furthered its goals, ChakraCore furthers its goals, Wine does not further its goals.
Over here in the.Net world, Microsofts open source contributions are a lot more than "token", btw.
Its not different standards at all - the comment was made that outside of some very specific middle eastern regions, burkas are uncommon, and yet when I go to London burkas are common enough across the entire city for people not to be staring, pointing or treating them as uncommon.
Therefore the prior assertion is total bollocks - burkas may not be the *norm* in London, but they are certainly not "uncommon".
Headlines can be wrong. Cant blame the Chinese for someone else fucking up a Slashdot submission or a news article, especially when the Chinese *government* press release doesn't use the same "worlds largest seaplane" language anywhere in it...
The protection system shifts the threat considerably, because it means the country with it no longer suffers the same threat as the country without it - the concept of mutually assured destruction counts on the destruction of both parties being mutually assured (funny that...), and a protection system means it is no longer mutually assured, one party has a much better chance of coming out with significantly less destruction than the other.
Think of it this way - you and your worst enemy both have guns pointing at each other from a distance of 50 paces. You both know there is enough time to fire back if the other one fires, and you also both know neither of you can move in time to not get hit. If both of you are sane, rational people, do either of you fire? No.
Now consider how that dynamic would change if your enemy put on a full body bullet proof suit of armour. All of a sudden it doesn't matter as much to him whether you fire or not, he is much more likely to survive than before - and he is also much more likely to survive than you are as you dont have his suit of armour.
The word "amphibious" has a lot of weight here - neither the BV238 nor the Hercules "Spruce Goose" was amphibious (both were seaplanes or flying boats, depending on the terminology used), so the claim is accurate.
The Hercules H-4 "Spruce Goose" (Hughes never liked that nickname) is not amphibious, it was a pure seaplane, while this Chinese aircraft is amphibious and it is the largest of its type.
Thats why the summary starts with "China has completed production of the world's largest amphibious aircraft"...
Every time I go to London, I see a couple of dozen burka clad people a day - consider the population of London and the fact that in one day I interact with a tiny proportion of that populace and still see burkas on a regular basis and it has to be fairly "common" in London...
It does earn AT&T money because they charge the originating telecoms network a termination fee for handling the call, regardless of your inbound minutes limit (which is a terrible US thing, we dont have that here in the UK, its outbound charges only for us).
Who is mid-contract here? Verizon stopped offering unlimited plans "a few years ago" which should put everyone on them comfortably out of contract - this is about out-of-contract users not voluntarily migrating to a different plan and being given an ultimatum.
And they also are under no obligation to allow out-of-contract users from continuing to use the old plan - which is exactly what they are doing here, telling the heaviest out-of-contract users to let up, move plan or Verizon will no longer do business with you.
Just as you don't have to do business with Verizon, once you are out of contract Verizon no longer have to do business with you - you aren't guaranteed or entitled to the same plan for the rest of eternity, only the duration of the contract.
The point is that they wouldnt sell under a non-premium brand, hence why this is an issue - they are trading on the value of the brand, regardless of the quality of the goods.
Otherwise the knockoffs would do just fine under their own brand.
Read the official prequel book to ID:R, the structure wasnt built, it was a ship that landed (they covered that in the film as well), and the issue was that it was in the land of an African warlord who was keeping everyone out - the book covered the "why" of not forcing access.
The film still sucked - for me, it was the leaping headlong from one scene to another, the pacing was way way too fast. The original had decent pacing, but ID:R tried to cram twice as much in, double the plot complexity and twice the cast and it doubled the pacing to make up for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations for not reading my post, dipshit, because it covers exactly fucking that.
Heres a little summary for you, because it seems you cant read large explanations - the negative number doesnt necessarily remain static when the production chain can be optimised for volume, so it wont always be "negative number multiplied by large number".
And if you doubt the facts of the matter, then you are doubting every single aircraft manufacturer (and both Airbus and Boeing are independently profitable), every single car manufacturer (you think that the first cars GM makes for a model are unit profitable? Think again...), every single electronics manufacturer out there (you think the first new model iPhones off the production line are per unit profitable? Think again....).
Practically no production line in the world is per unit profitable from the moment it starts, every single one has a ramp up and its that ramp up where the revenue goes from negative to positive.
Its basic fucking manufacturing economics. Which you fail at.
If you look at past Presidential results, G W Bush and Obama's victories were resoundingly pedestrian (with their opposition getting electoral votes like 266 or 173) compared to Reagans landslide of 525 electoral votes to 13.
The margin does matter, not because it overtly means anything, but it changes political landscapes. If the Hillary-Trump battle ends up with a narrow margin for a Clinton victory, it means that Trump didnt need to do a lot more to win and that his style of politics *works*, so future campaigns can be run in the same way. Trump needs to get annihilated in order for the Republicans to actually enact meaningful change to guarantee they dont have another Trump style candidate.
Canada uses the same voting system as the UK, but we have nearly double the number of voters than Canada, we don't require *any* ID to be shown to vote (you get asked your name and street address, thats it - its illegal for the officer to ask for ID) and the UK still has a near zero rate of election fraud. Its so low that individual cases of people turning up to vote and finding their name has already been crossed off make the national news.
Its not necessarily a folly at all.
Take an example from the aviation industry - you have a lot of up front investment to design an aircraft, build the test aircraft and carry out the testing.
You are typically north of $15Billion in debt on the program before the first aircraft has been delivered.
The problem is, that first aircraft delivered adds to the debt, it doesn't decrease it. Woah, I hear you say, why would you hand an aircraft over that costs you more to make than a customer buys it for? Simple really, because the customer wants a decent price and won't pay any more, and you are banking on that in order to sell lots of these aircraft.
It gets worse than the first aircraft, as the first few hundred off the production line will actually cost you more than you receive from a customer. The design, development and testing of the aircraft has already been paid for, so whats adding to the debt now?
Inefficiencies in the production chain, thats whats adding to the debt - the production chain ramp up costs money, and its burned on those first few hundred aircraft
But with each aircraft that is delivered, the cost of production goes down as the production chain improves, parts get cheaper to produce, parts are produced quicker etc etc etc.
So Boeing and Airbus count on two points in any aircrafts production life - the moment an airframe breaks even on production costs, and the moment the program pays back its investment. The first is called the production break even, and the second is called the program break even. All planes delivered after the program break even is profit, so for a market of 1,000 aircraft, you generally aim for production break even to be no later than 300, and program break even to be no more than 600, and then you sit back and let the money roll in.
Pricing aircraft before the production break even to eliminate the concept of production break even doesn't work, because no one will buy those early airframes if they cost more than the late airframes, so you *have* to eat that cost in order to have a product which you can sell at a profit later on.
Occasionally airframe manufacturers cock it up - Airbus achieved production break even on the A380 but will never achieve program break even, and Boeing currently wont achieve program break even on the 787 even with the current order book of 1,100 aircraft - they need another 300 or so on top of that to clear the program back log of debt.
But then you have cash cows like the A320, A330, 737, 767 and 777 all of which achieved production and program break evens early on in their lives, and went on to sell massive amounts of airframes at profitable levels. For example, the A320s production break even was set at 400 airframes - its now past 7,100 aircraft delivered, so thats the trade off.
So Musk and Tesla know they have to bring the cost of producing the cars down - the only way to do that is to actually produce them. R&D is only going to get you so far on the costs, you need a production line which can be streamlined and self lubricates, so you need to take a loss on the product until the production line is cost effective.
So selling it cheap but making it up in volume does work - the "common folly" only comes into play when the cost of producing the volume stays static at the same cost of producing one item, which it does not do. This is why the gigafactory concept is so beneficial here - Musk puts one on each continent and pushes battery production to levels never seen before, levels which are orders of magnitude more than current levels, the cost of the car doesnt go down but the cost of producing a core component of the car does down dramatically.
Drives designed for RAID use typically have different firmware which react differently to issues - RAID friendly drives react quicker to failures, meaning they are less likely to fail the RAID over correctable errors. Put a drive not intended for RAID use in an array and you will see more failures over drive level correctable errors.
Archival disks are one of those drives you will see this issue with.
They still exist, pretty much every business still has a landline, and now any passer by in the street is almost guaranteed to have a phone. I still see no reason to make this about a terrorist attack or anything else - its private property, the only right that exists here is the right for that owner to do this.
This is the UK, those lawsuits dont happen here because we have common fucking sense - you have no inherent human right to make or receive phone calls on private property, so there is no implicit consent needed. Faraday cage or not, missing someones death or your kid getting knocked down gives you no grounds to sue the property owner because you couldnt make or receive a phone call.
The endangering argument would fall flat on its face here in the UK, thankfully.
How the *fuck* did we function during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s without mobile phones and *active* terrorist cells on the UK mainland carrying out IRA attacks?
Somehow, someone still managed to call the police without a mobile phone...
"But what if there is a terrorist attack!?!" has rapidly become the new "wont somebody think of the children?!?" in ridiculous arguments either for or against something.
Thank you for repeating your "demand", but you again fail to explain *why* Microsoft should contribute to Wine - "because they should" is not an arguable reason. And Wine being "meaningful" is a matter of opinion - its not meaningful to Microsoft, so why should they contribute to it?
ChakraCore furthers a lot of Microsofts goal - fully expect a UWP runtime for Linux in the near future, with stuff like Skype etc running the same code across all platforms. How is that not a goal that is being furthered?
And your opinion of .Net pretty much shows that you cam be discounted entirely from any adult discussion on this topic. You are basically saying "no one uses or gives a shit about Linux. Apart from the millions of people that use and give a shit about Linux, but Im going to ignore that because it doesnt fit with my view."
Why should Microsoft contribute to a project that doesnt further its goals? Mono furthered its goals, ChakraCore furthers its goals, Wine does not further its goals.
Over here in the .Net world, Microsofts open source contributions are a lot more than "token", btw.
Its not different standards at all - the comment was made that outside of some very specific middle eastern regions, burkas are uncommon, and yet when I go to London burkas are common enough across the entire city for people not to be staring, pointing or treating them as uncommon.
Therefore the prior assertion is total bollocks - burkas may not be the *norm* in London, but they are certainly not "uncommon".
Headlines can be wrong. Cant blame the Chinese for someone else fucking up a Slashdot submission or a news article, especially when the Chinese *government* press release doesn't use the same "worlds largest seaplane" language anywhere in it...
The protection system shifts the threat considerably, because it means the country with it no longer suffers the same threat as the country without it - the concept of mutually assured destruction counts on the destruction of both parties being mutually assured (funny that...), and a protection system means it is no longer mutually assured, one party has a much better chance of coming out with significantly less destruction than the other.
Think of it this way - you and your worst enemy both have guns pointing at each other from a distance of 50 paces. You both know there is enough time to fire back if the other one fires, and you also both know neither of you can move in time to not get hit. If both of you are sane, rational people, do either of you fire? No.
Now consider how that dynamic would change if your enemy put on a full body bullet proof suit of armour. All of a sudden it doesn't matter as much to him whether you fire or not, he is much more likely to survive than before - and he is also much more likely to survive than you are as you dont have his suit of armour.
Gets a little too uncomfortable, doesn't it?
The word "amphibious" has a lot of weight here - neither the BV238 nor the Hercules "Spruce Goose" was amphibious (both were seaplanes or flying boats, depending on the terminology used), so the claim is accurate.
The Hercules H-4 "Spruce Goose" (Hughes never liked that nickname) is not amphibious, it was a pure seaplane, while this Chinese aircraft is amphibious and it is the largest of its type.
Thats why the summary starts with "China has completed production of the world's largest amphibious aircraft"...
Every time I go to London, I see a couple of dozen burka clad people a day - consider the population of London and the fact that in one day I interact with a tiny proportion of that populace and still see burkas on a regular basis and it has to be fairly "common" in London...
A ridiculous argument since thats not what we are discussing - a parasite and a dependent are different things.
Until I left her body, yes, she had the right to "kill" me.
And Im doing fine thanks, married and living in a different country to my parents. How about you? Does your mom mind when you steal her rent money?
"Viable human beings" being ... parasites, am I correct?
It does earn AT&T money because they charge the originating telecoms network a termination fee for handling the call, regardless of your inbound minutes limit (which is a terrible US thing, we dont have that here in the UK, its outbound charges only for us).
Who is mid-contract here? Verizon stopped offering unlimited plans "a few years ago" which should put everyone on them comfortably out of contract - this is about out-of-contract users not voluntarily migrating to a different plan and being given an ultimatum.
They no longer offer it.
And they also are under no obligation to allow out-of-contract users from continuing to use the old plan - which is exactly what they are doing here, telling the heaviest out-of-contract users to let up, move plan or Verizon will no longer do business with you.
Just as you don't have to do business with Verizon, once you are out of contract Verizon no longer have to do business with you - you aren't guaranteed or entitled to the same plan for the rest of eternity, only the duration of the contract.
The point is that they wouldnt sell under a non-premium brand, hence why this is an issue - they are trading on the value of the brand, regardless of the quality of the goods.
Otherwise the knockoffs would do just fine under their own brand.
Read the official prequel book to ID:R, the structure wasnt built, it was a ship that landed (they covered that in the film as well), and the issue was that it was in the land of an African warlord who was keeping everyone out - the book covered the "why" of not forcing access.
The film still sucked - for me, it was the leaping headlong from one scene to another, the pacing was way way too fast. The original had decent pacing, but ID:R tried to cram twice as much in, double the plot complexity and twice the cast and it doubled the pacing to make up for it.