It's doing very well for the situation it's in, which is a new car company gaining market share and getting great reviews. If you don't understand why that is happening, you might want to figure out why. I'm not defensive about this; I'm interested in the thought processes. Tesla has something going for it that you don't get (and I don't know enough to understand). What is it?
What strikes me about the zealotry is its inherent ineffectiveness. Don't like X? Don't like their success? Then understand what they're doing and why it's working. Sitting around and making up disparaging reasons or invoking the magic words "marketing" and "fanbois" serves no useful purpose.
Michigan was close, and the UAW members may well have heavily supported Clinton but been outweighed by other people in the state (or perhaps Detroit inefficiency and/or vote fraud played a part).
I understand your conjecture as saying that Ford was going to spend $1.6G in Mexico rather than spending $700M in the US, for essentially the same thing, before changing its decision. It seems very odd that Ford would spend $900M extra just to locate a plant in Mexico rather than the US. Labor costs would be less in Mexico, but by that much?
Aighearach's conjecture is that there were two unrelated projects, one costing $1.6G and one costing $700M, and they dropped the first and are proceeding with the second instead. This avoids having to explain why plants in Mexico are so much more profitable than plants in the US. The $700M project looks to be higher tech, and more suited for doing in the US.
The problem with attributing a major change to Trump's election is that we don't know what's going to happen. Trump has said he'll do something to discourage sending jobs abroad. This is probably not good for his business interests, so I don't know if he'll actually do it. (One thing we know about Trump is that he's a big liar.) If he does propose something, I don't know how Congress will react. It's mostly controlled by mainstream Republicans, who might or might not support Trump's initiatives, and who are unlikely to want to pass such a proposal.
Most things people do with computers really don't need all the memory and CPU power of a high-end desktop. The software is usually limited by human speed for input and can take advantage of human speed for output (you really don't need to give a response in less time than about a tenth of a second). I expect single-user desktops to become a niche market, and they'll tend to be based on servers (which do benefit from additional power).
It's easy to get rid of clueless idiots, once you can identify them. The hard part is finding developers who aren't clueless idiots, and so lots of software development is done by clueless idiots because they're available.
If Facebook didn't control content, it would be dead. Even excluding illegal content, there's stuff that would offend so many people as to make Facebook commercially unviable. Given a public forum with sufficiently many people, someone's going to try to post stuff that will offend lots and lots of people, and unless that person is stopped somehow the forum will be abandoned. I've seen it happen in Usenet, back in the 90s.
In this case, the offending content wouldn't have bothered me, but nudity does bother lots of people, so Facebook execs think they're better off censoring it than not. There's pictures that would bother me, typically involving violence. If I couldn't reliably get on Facebook without seeing pictures of adequately dressed people being tortured, I'd never come back. Facebook has to draw the line somewhere, and where they draw it is not so much a matter of principle as a matter of business.
However, I can use Bing instead of Google whenever I want. Facebook is where my friends and family are. It would do me little good to join another social network.
Also, it wouldn't particularly surprise me to find that Russia had hacked vote counts, although I've seen no evidence of it. It's something that could happen, and that Russia might well do.
Says you. What if the factory reset makes the TV unusable or crippled without doing something requiring special tools or knowledge? What if it's an attack vector? I'm not claiming that these would be well-designed TVs, just that they could happen. IIRC, LG provided a reset procedure that they thought adequate against the threat models when the set was designed, but which didn't get around the malware.
It's also a problem with technical devices behaving differently from earlier devices. Until cars became computerized, I wasn't going to find that driving past a particular billboard or tuning to a particular radio station would cause problems with it. I could understand what was a threat to the car, and what sort of threat it represented, by a very basic knowledge of the mechanics involved. It was fairly easy to tell whether X was a threat to Y, and what sort of threat it was.
Fast forward to when visiting websites like the New York Times can cause arbitrary harm to your computer. Given some capacity for abstract thought, it's not difficult to learn computers to the same extent that I knew cars back then. (I hated shop class.) That isn't anywhere near enough to allow you to detect threats and figure what they can do.
Especially with Comey running the FBI. A lot of people I run into are either upset at him for his information release days before the election, or upset at him because they think he lied to help Clinton escape prosecution (I couldn't find a case of unintentional mishandling of classified material in my search that resulted in criminal prosecution, BTW).
If you illegally torrent your movies, I doubt you'll see the FBI warnings. Another advantage of copyright violation: you can get a superior product. This is preaching to the choir when you're positive the sinners who need the sermon are not in the church.
The problem here is that Walmart sells things of inferior quality without properly communicating that to the customer. I've never seen any signs in a Wal-Mart pointing out that the Levi jeans are a special Walmart-only version without the quality of Levi jeans elsewhere. That's something I found out elsewhere.
Without adequate information, cheap crap drives expensive quality out of the market. Walmarts have a habit of showing up and selling apparently identical merchandise for less, driving the stores that sell the better stuff out of business.
If you want the lower-quality stuff, sure, shop at Walmart if you don't mind how they treat their employees.
The problem with copyright reform is that copyright problems are a small cost to very many people, and sometimes an opportunity cost (the makers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" would have included Popeye characters if not for copyright protection), while people who benefit from copyright abuse make a considerable profit from it. Therefore, a politician can represent the public's interest, and get essentially no credit for it, or the MAFIAA's, and get campaign contributions.
I can legally demand copies of the source code from any manufacturer who's distributing televisions with GPLed software without also providing source code. As long as we're talking about GPLv2, I cannot require anyone to allow me to install any changed software on my TV, so I can't necessarily use it.
This is one of the differences between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman: Torvalds is happy being able to look at any adaptations of the Linux kernel and incorporate what he likes into his version, and Stallman wants to be able to change the software on any device he uses.
First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well,
That pretty much destroys your credibility. You can accept what the smart people who study this in depth say all over the world, who have a wide array of funding sources, or you can look into it for yourself, and find that it's happening. If you have an argument against AGW happening that is evidence-based and hasn't been refuted dozens of times before on Slashdot alone, please post.
I think we can both agree that even on the most extreme scale presented, your worst case of global warming is half a century to well over a century away.
The worst effects are considerably in the future. It's hard to pin down, since climate change is statistical, but we appear to be having bad effects from it now. These effects will disproportionately hit those in undeveloped countries.
they are cooking food with shit.
I'm aware of that. Camel crap is locally and easily available. I don't know how much the problem is that it's unhealthy and how much is first-world feelings of ickiness. Coal is not locally and easily available. If we're going to bring new technology in, we find that coal plants require considerably more in the way of logistics, and they require transmission lines..Solar panels can be installed locally, and a solar power system is therefore much less vulnerable to disruption.
It seems plausible to me, assuming he kept getting his laptops out of the same batch. If a truck with a load of laptops got into a collision, for example, it could damage most or all of the laptops. It seems very unlikely that three randomly selected laptops would fail like that.
And you're making a classic marketing mistake here. You're asking the customer what the customer wants without regard to what's going to sell. You're also phrasing the question to get the answer you want, which makes it useless.
It's very simple. If thin sells to lots of people (not necessarily including you or me), there will be a lot of thin. If thin doesn't sell, there won't be.
For business purposes, the question is not whether a thinner laptop that sacrifices battery life is better, but whether it will sell better. Durability is hard to quantify, and some people treat their equipment a lot rougher than others. (I try to be careful, but I'm clumsy.)
If thinner sells, then thinner wins. At least for MS Windows and Linux laptops, there's more companies making them, and a greater incentive to sell laptops to a niche market.
Do the research yourself, if you don't trust mine. You can find cases of people who unintentionally mishandled classified material. You will find that they did not face criminal prosecution. Literally all the cases I found of criminal prosecution were of people who intentionally mishandled classified material. The pass on prosecution is completely standard for people who did what Clinton did.
Again, I'm not talking about black-letter law. I'm talking about how it has been consistently applied in the past.
If you deliberately mishandle classified material, your reasons and intended use of it are not likely to get you off, but that's a different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's doing very well for the situation it's in, which is a new car company gaining market share and getting great reviews. If you don't understand why that is happening, you might want to figure out why. I'm not defensive about this; I'm interested in the thought processes. Tesla has something going for it that you don't get (and I don't know enough to understand). What is it?
$2.30/gallon sounds reasonable for now in the US, but I think gas prices are a lot likelier to go well above that than much below.
Depends on whether the wind chill is below -20F/-30C/243K.
What strikes me about the zealotry is its inherent ineffectiveness. Don't like X? Don't like their success? Then understand what they're doing and why it's working. Sitting around and making up disparaging reasons or invoking the magic words "marketing" and "fanbois" serves no useful purpose.
Michigan was close, and the UAW members may well have heavily supported Clinton but been outweighed by other people in the state (or perhaps Detroit inefficiency and/or vote fraud played a part).
Since when are CEO public statements necessarily truthful? The CEO might have been wanting to butter up Trump. I'm calling that doubtful at best.
A CEO of a large company should be aware that the Trump presidency is going to be very uncertain in its effects.
I understand your conjecture as saying that Ford was going to spend $1.6G in Mexico rather than spending $700M in the US, for essentially the same thing, before changing its decision. It seems very odd that Ford would spend $900M extra just to locate a plant in Mexico rather than the US. Labor costs would be less in Mexico, but by that much?
Aighearach's conjecture is that there were two unrelated projects, one costing $1.6G and one costing $700M, and they dropped the first and are proceeding with the second instead. This avoids having to explain why plants in Mexico are so much more profitable than plants in the US. The $700M project looks to be higher tech, and more suited for doing in the US.
The problem with attributing a major change to Trump's election is that we don't know what's going to happen. Trump has said he'll do something to discourage sending jobs abroad. This is probably not good for his business interests, so I don't know if he'll actually do it. (One thing we know about Trump is that he's a big liar.) If he does propose something, I don't know how Congress will react. It's mostly controlled by mainstream Republicans, who might or might not support Trump's initiatives, and who are unlikely to want to pass such a proposal.
Most things people do with computers really don't need all the memory and CPU power of a high-end desktop. The software is usually limited by human speed for input and can take advantage of human speed for output (you really don't need to give a response in less time than about a tenth of a second). I expect single-user desktops to become a niche market, and they'll tend to be based on servers (which do benefit from additional power).
It's easy to get rid of clueless idiots, once you can identify them. The hard part is finding developers who aren't clueless idiots, and so lots of software development is done by clueless idiots because they're available.
If Facebook didn't control content, it would be dead. Even excluding illegal content, there's stuff that would offend so many people as to make Facebook commercially unviable. Given a public forum with sufficiently many people, someone's going to try to post stuff that will offend lots and lots of people, and unless that person is stopped somehow the forum will be abandoned. I've seen it happen in Usenet, back in the 90s.
In this case, the offending content wouldn't have bothered me, but nudity does bother lots of people, so Facebook execs think they're better off censoring it than not. There's pictures that would bother me, typically involving violence. If I couldn't reliably get on Facebook without seeing pictures of adequately dressed people being tortured, I'd never come back. Facebook has to draw the line somewhere, and where they draw it is not so much a matter of principle as a matter of business.
However, I can use Bing instead of Google whenever I want. Facebook is where my friends and family are. It would do me little good to join another social network.
Also, it wouldn't particularly surprise me to find that Russia had hacked vote counts, although I've seen no evidence of it. It's something that could happen, and that Russia might well do.
Says you. What if the factory reset makes the TV unusable or crippled without doing something requiring special tools or knowledge? What if it's an attack vector? I'm not claiming that these would be well-designed TVs, just that they could happen. IIRC, LG provided a reset procedure that they thought adequate against the threat models when the set was designed, but which didn't get around the malware.
It's also a problem with technical devices behaving differently from earlier devices. Until cars became computerized, I wasn't going to find that driving past a particular billboard or tuning to a particular radio station would cause problems with it. I could understand what was a threat to the car, and what sort of threat it represented, by a very basic knowledge of the mechanics involved. It was fairly easy to tell whether X was a threat to Y, and what sort of threat it was.
Fast forward to when visiting websites like the New York Times can cause arbitrary harm to your computer. Given some capacity for abstract thought, it's not difficult to learn computers to the same extent that I knew cars back then. (I hated shop class.) That isn't anywhere near enough to allow you to detect threats and figure what they can do.
Especially with Comey running the FBI. A lot of people I run into are either upset at him for his information release days before the election, or upset at him because they think he lied to help Clinton escape prosecution (I couldn't find a case of unintentional mishandling of classified material in my search that resulted in criminal prosecution, BTW).
If you illegally torrent your movies, I doubt you'll see the FBI warnings. Another advantage of copyright violation: you can get a superior product. This is preaching to the choir when you're positive the sinners who need the sermon are not in the church.
The problem here is that Walmart sells things of inferior quality without properly communicating that to the customer. I've never seen any signs in a Wal-Mart pointing out that the Levi jeans are a special Walmart-only version without the quality of Levi jeans elsewhere. That's something I found out elsewhere.
Without adequate information, cheap crap drives expensive quality out of the market. Walmarts have a habit of showing up and selling apparently identical merchandise for less, driving the stores that sell the better stuff out of business.
If you want the lower-quality stuff, sure, shop at Walmart if you don't mind how they treat their employees.
The problem with copyright reform is that copyright problems are a small cost to very many people, and sometimes an opportunity cost (the makers of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" would have included Popeye characters if not for copyright protection), while people who benefit from copyright abuse make a considerable profit from it. Therefore, a politician can represent the public's interest, and get essentially no credit for it, or the MAFIAA's, and get campaign contributions.
I can legally demand copies of the source code from any manufacturer who's distributing televisions with GPLed software without also providing source code. As long as we're talking about GPLv2, I cannot require anyone to allow me to install any changed software on my TV, so I can't necessarily use it.
This is one of the differences between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman: Torvalds is happy being able to look at any adaptations of the Linux kernel and incorporate what he likes into his version, and Stallman wants to be able to change the software on any device he uses.
That pretty much destroys your credibility. You can accept what the smart people who study this in depth say all over the world, who have a wide array of funding sources, or you can look into it for yourself, and find that it's happening. If you have an argument against AGW happening that is evidence-based and hasn't been refuted dozens of times before on Slashdot alone, please post.
The worst effects are considerably in the future. It's hard to pin down, since climate change is statistical, but we appear to be having bad effects from it now. These effects will disproportionately hit those in undeveloped countries.
I'm aware of that. Camel crap is locally and easily available. I don't know how much the problem is that it's unhealthy and how much is first-world feelings of ickiness. Coal is not locally and easily available. If we're going to bring new technology in, we find that coal plants require considerably more in the way of logistics, and they require transmission lines. .Solar panels can be installed locally, and a solar power system is therefore much less vulnerable to disruption.
It seems plausible to me, assuming he kept getting his laptops out of the same batch. If a truck with a load of laptops got into a collision, for example, it could damage most or all of the laptops. It seems very unlikely that three randomly selected laptops would fail like that.
And you're making a classic marketing mistake here. You're asking the customer what the customer wants without regard to what's going to sell. You're also phrasing the question to get the answer you want, which makes it useless.
It's very simple. If thin sells to lots of people (not necessarily including you or me), there will be a lot of thin. If thin doesn't sell, there won't be.
For business purposes, the question is not whether a thinner laptop that sacrifices battery life is better, but whether it will sell better. Durability is hard to quantify, and some people treat their equipment a lot rougher than others. (I try to be careful, but I'm clumsy.)
If thinner sells, then thinner wins. At least for MS Windows and Linux laptops, there's more companies making them, and a greater incentive to sell laptops to a niche market.
Thank you for the explanation.
Do the research yourself, if you don't trust mine. You can find cases of people who unintentionally mishandled classified material. You will find that they did not face criminal prosecution. Literally all the cases I found of criminal prosecution were of people who intentionally mishandled classified material. The pass on prosecution is completely standard for people who did what Clinton did.
Again, I'm not talking about black-letter law. I'm talking about how it has been consistently applied in the past.
If you deliberately mishandle classified material, your reasons and intended use of it are not likely to get you off, but that's a different matter.