my disbelief at the amount of PR bullshit you swallow
It's become "an amount of" now has it? You're making more stuff up.
The fact is that I have more reason to believe them than you. Both because they have a reputation for delivering, and you don't, and because they know the figures and you don't.
You really argue a lot for someone who wanted proof that a bunch of solar panels aren't enough to charge cars under realistic conditions...
But I already know that they are. There are many people who get virtually all of their EV electricity from the panels on their own roofs. And we're not talking a vast area of panels.
Have you ever written a billing system that has to handle refunds through three entirely different mechanisms provided by three different companies?
Apple handle refunds. It's part of the service.
Have you ever had to explain to customers that the refund policy for product A is different from the policy for product B because you bought product A using an iOS app?
No, but of the many things that customer support have to explain to customers that doesn't seem particularly complex. Especially as iOS users tend to know that they do all their purchases through the App Store. Simplicity wins.
Yes, it is more difficult for Amazon than it is for other developers, unless they have no intention of ever unifying the purchasing experience, which is something that they are obviously trying to do.
Well that's their choice to make it more difficult for themselves than all those other businesses.
Yes. Let the market sort it out. The three companies who go off on their own and do things outside of in-app purchase without a really good reason (companies without an ongoing customer relationship outside of the iOS world) will get slammed in the press, and nobody will make that mistake again. The companies that do have a legitimate reason won't be criticized for it, and in the end, it will all "just work (out)".
Your belief that the free market means things magically "just work out" is touchingly naive. Especially after the estimate of just 3 companies getting it wrong out of the hundreds of thousands of iOS developers. You just made life more complicated for iOS users. That is not "just working out".
As I understand it, Amazon's MFN contract clauses were mostly phased out a while back because they they were found to be illegal by a court of law.
Possibly. I don't remember seeing a news article saying they'd stopped. But then again I haven't heard about them doing it recently either. But the irony remains if Amazon used to do it and only stopped because a court ordered it.
Do you know what I love about you Basil? The plainest statement of fact by someone, if not in line with your ideology, must be attacked as whining and complaining.
It was whining and complaining. There are a myriad of government subsidies, most of which you CAN'T claim. Here's one you can claim, by simply doing the promoted actiokn of buying an EV. And yet this is the one you complain about, not all the ones you can't claim, that are orders of magnitude bigger. Not only is it whining, it's dumb whining.
So you didn't know that the oil companies are subsidized. Here's a clue, in future before you make a fool of yourself, try Google. e.g.
You might not. Lots of other people do. And no permission was ever sought to do it. One day they announced that they were doing it, and gave access to a page where a couple of years worth of your search terms were listed. It felt very 1984 like. Maybe you missed it. I don't think they even give access to that data any more.
(They excuse it on the premise of getting better search results. They actually do it so they can target advertising.)
And in my opinion BETTER search results are the same search results that anyone else would get. Apart from the privacy implications, it's bloody annoying to tell someone to do a certain search, then find out they don't get the same pages you do.
And I'm saying there is no "competitive figure" of pay that will stop your competitors offering more. So it's not the solution that you claimed it was.
It is spying, because Google use that redirect in order not simply to log the popularity of that link, but to store the fact that YOU in particular clicked on it.
That's why I said "a competitive salary". If somebody else is willing to pay a bit more, then your salary is not competitive (at least, not successfully).
No, that's the old "perfect market" codswallop. There isn't a magic number that is the correct worth of a commodity (in this case a person's labour). Just as there isn't a magic number for what a house is worth, or a stock. Prices are drummed up by people who make commission from doing so. There is no upper limit.
Good! (Score:3, Insightful) by Charliemopps (1157495) Alter Relationship on Friday May 02, 2014 @10:52AM (#46899181) "I'm generally a Google fan" http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I have an amazing, original idea for retaining talent. Ready for this?........ Pay them a competitive salary.
I'm pretty sure Apple do pay their engineers well. But whatever you pay them, there will always be another company that will come along and pay a bit more.
So your comments are from ignorance. I was a mobile developer since before the iPhone ever came out. I used to do apps on Symbian OS. And the mobile store I was listed on was charging 43%.
Mobile developers welcomed Apple's mere 30%.
Unless you only happen to sell around $50, hosting, bandwidth and transaction fees should be a drop in the bucket and nowhere near 30%.
And a frisbee is a few cents worth of plastic, sold in a cardboard package which costs a few more cents. Then it sells for several dollars. What is it you don't understand about how business works?
Jobs was the only tech industry giant with the gall to assume that he deserved a cut of every piece of software sold over his company's platforms
You seem to have forgotten Nintendo, who had that model since the 1980s. In fact it's the industry standard model for consoles. All attempts at more open consoles for which anyone can publish games have failed.
Then you have the paradox that even though there are more Android phones out there, there is more software sold for iPhones.
The reality is that having a single publisher, rules, and at least some quality controls, are things that most consumers like.
You're a Google fan. The "no-poaching agreement' was between Apple and Google. Yet you don't condemn Eric Schmidt. You just concentrate your hate in the CEO of the competitor of your favoured company.
That makes you a hypocrite. Unless you can link me to the post where you did condemn Eric Schmidt...
Even if you can cut down the exposure required to 5-6 hours, the point is still valid.
You're pulling figures out of your ass.
The fact that they're sunny only means that there will be fewer occasions on which they won't be producing as much power. They won't magically produce more power in ideal conditions because "it's sunny".
Of course PVs produce more power when it's sunny. And that's not just about hours of cloud cover. Go back to your Wiki page and you'll find that it matter's very much where in the world the PV cel is as to how much power it produces.
Do you take all claims made by companies at face value? I hope not.
I take them as more likely to be right than some random internet guy who's pulling figures out of his ass.
Microsoft pushed tablets for years, but there was no big demand for them until the first iPad. Sometimes things just need the right combination of features and/or capabilities before they succeed. Just sayin'.
Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not saying an open console couldn't succeed. If it was a winner in every other way, the openness wouldn't stop it being a success. What I'm saying is that openness itself isn't something that most people care about.
Back to phones, and Android isn't successful because it's open. It's successful and it's also open.
If you can afford a car, then use the government subsidy to buy an EV. They're available to all.
I can't afford some of the cars
We all have SOME cars we can't afford. Quit whining.
The bigger picture: The subsidies for EVs pail into insignificance compared to government subsidies to oil companies and bailouts to traditional car companies.
You don't get to personally benefit from every subsidy. Complaining about this particular one is stupid.
According to wikipedia, typical photovoltaic power density is 170W/m^2.
Three mistakes here:
1) Who said Tesla is using "typical" photovoltaics?
2) Who said Tesla's solar superchargers were located in average sunlight areas? (They are not the press release covers stations in California, parts of Nevada and Arizona - VERY sunny areas.)
3) Follow the reference in Wiki and you find it comes from 2006. That's a long time ago in PV technology.
I believe you'll find my estimates were conservative
If by conservative, you mean vastly underestimating the power these things produce from the sun.
Really, Tesla does know this stuff better than you.
And if they do they call them deniers and work to deny publishing and funding.
Provide me with a single link to a scientific paper that says there's no anthropogenic global warming that has been denied publication.
The reason they are not published is because they don't exist. Not because they've been denied publication.
There is no scientific controversy on AGW. There is only denialism, specifically crafted by Frank Luntz in a memo for the Bush Whitehouse in 2002: http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
The fact that you talk as you do means that his approach has worked on you.
Android phones have been successful by being the cheap option. Which comes from being the open option.
Not really. It's actually widespread licensing. The completely open AOSP hasn't really been that successful. It's the version with Google's proprietary components that has been. And it's made for cheap throats because widespread licensing has meant there's cut-throat competition amongst no-name Chinese manufacturers.
There's no magic about open source. It's been entirely unsuccessful with consoles as already pointed out. And it's been largely unsuccessful with PCs.
I think you just continued to demonstrate that you don't understand the world of ordinary people. (i.e. non-geeks).
After two decades of people simply refusing to listen, my conclusion is that the problem lies with them, and not me.
Actually of course the problem lies with the geeks of the internet failing to implement a more secure email standard, when they recognised that was needed.
Heh heh! Always amusing when you come along with your one link to a blog, claiming that you and the blogger are know climate science better than all the world's climate scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
my disbelief at the amount of PR bullshit you swallow
It's become "an amount of" now has it? You're making more stuff up.
The fact is that I have more reason to believe them than you. Both because they have a reputation for delivering, and you don't, and because they know the figures and you don't.
You really argue a lot for someone who wanted proof that a bunch of solar panels aren't enough to charge cars under realistic conditions...
But I already know that they are. There are many people who get virtually all of their EV electricity from the panels on their own roofs. And we're not talking a vast area of panels.
Have you ever written a billing system that has to handle refunds through three entirely different mechanisms provided by three different companies?
Apple handle refunds. It's part of the service.
Have you ever had to explain to customers that the refund policy for product A is different from the policy for product B because you bought product A using an iOS app?
No, but of the many things that customer support have to explain to customers that doesn't seem particularly complex. Especially as iOS users tend to know that they do all their purchases through the App Store. Simplicity wins.
Yes, it is more difficult for Amazon than it is for other developers, unless they have no intention of ever unifying the purchasing experience, which is something that they are obviously trying to do.
Well that's their choice to make it more difficult for themselves than all those other businesses.
Yes. Let the market sort it out. The three companies who go off on their own and do things outside of in-app purchase without a really good reason (companies without an ongoing customer relationship outside of the iOS world) will get slammed in the press, and nobody will make that mistake again. The companies that do have a legitimate reason won't be criticized for it, and in the end, it will all "just work (out)".
Your belief that the free market means things magically "just work out" is touchingly naive. Especially after the estimate of just 3 companies getting it wrong out of the hundreds of thousands of iOS developers. You just made life more complicated for iOS users. That is not "just working out".
As I understand it, Amazon's MFN contract clauses were mostly phased out a while back because they they were found to be illegal by a court of law.
Possibly. I don't remember seeing a news article saying they'd stopped. But then again I haven't heard about them doing it recently either. But the irony remains if Amazon used to do it and only stopped because a court ordered it.
Do you know what I love about you Basil? The plainest statement of fact by someone, if not in line with your ideology, must be attacked as whining and complaining.
It was whining and complaining. There are a myriad of government subsidies, most of which you CAN'T claim. Here's one you can claim, by simply doing the promoted actiokn of buying an EV. And yet this is the one you complain about, not all the ones you can't claim, that are orders of magnitude bigger. Not only is it whining, it's dumb whining.
So you didn't know that the oil companies are subsidized. Here's a clue, in future before you make a fool of yourself, try Google. e.g.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
Right, so you're still wriggling and you're making excusing the Google exec rather than condemn him.
You just confirmed exactly what I said.
You might not. Lots of other people do. And no permission was ever sought to do it. One day they announced that they were doing it, and gave access to a page where a couple of years worth of your search terms were listed. It felt very 1984 like. Maybe you missed it. I don't think they even give access to that data any more.
(They excuse it on the premise of getting better search results. They actually do it so they can target advertising.)
And in my opinion BETTER search results are the same search results that anyone else would get. Apart from the privacy implications, it's bloody annoying to tell someone to do a certain search, then find out they don't get the same pages you do.
And I'm saying there is no "competitive figure" of pay that will stop your competitors offering more. So it's not the solution that you claimed it was.
It is spying, because Google use that redirect in order not simply to log the popularity of that link, but to store the fact that YOU in particular clicked on it.
That's why I said "a competitive salary". If somebody else is willing to pay a bit more, then your salary is not competitive (at least, not successfully).
No, that's the old "perfect market" codswallop. There isn't a magic number that is the correct worth of a commodity (in this case a person's labour). Just as there isn't a magic number for what a house is worth, or a stock. Prices are drummed up by people who make commission from doing so. There is no upper limit.
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
by Charliemopps (1157495) Alter Relationship on Friday May 02, 2014 @10:52AM (#46899181)
"I'm generally a Google fan"
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Next question.
Seriously, I don't understand why you're so convinced Tesla had the ultimate answer to everything - they don't.
Strawman. I'm just calling you out on contradiction of a tech claim based on guesses.
Tesla might have pulled the claim out of their ass, but I know for certain you pulled your contradiction from yours.
I have an amazing, original idea for retaining talent. Ready for this? ........ Pay them a competitive salary.
I'm pretty sure Apple do pay their engineers well. But whatever you pay them, there will always be another company that will come along and pay a bit more.
Jesus, it's 30%? I thought it was 10%. Sickening.
So your comments are from ignorance. I was a mobile developer since before the iPhone ever came out. I used to do apps on Symbian OS. And the mobile store I was listed on was charging 43%.
Mobile developers welcomed Apple's mere 30%.
Unless you only happen to sell around $50, hosting, bandwidth and transaction fees should be a drop in the bucket and nowhere near 30%.
And a frisbee is a few cents worth of plastic, sold in a cardboard package which costs a few more cents. Then it sells for several dollars. What is it you don't understand about how business works?
Jobs was the only tech industry giant with the gall to assume that he deserved a cut of every piece of software sold over his company's platforms
You seem to have forgotten Nintendo, who had that model since the 1980s. In fact it's the industry standard model for consoles. All attempts at more open consoles for which anyone can publish games have failed.
Then you have the paradox that even though there are more Android phones out there, there is more software sold for iPhones.
The reality is that having a single publisher, rules, and at least some quality controls, are things that most consumers like.
You're a Google fan. The "no-poaching agreement' was between Apple and Google. Yet you don't condemn Eric Schmidt. You just concentrate your hate in the CEO of the competitor of your favoured company.
That makes you a hypocrite. Unless you can link me to the post where you did condemn Eric Schmidt...
Even if you can cut down the exposure required to 5-6 hours, the point is still valid.
You're pulling figures out of your ass.
The fact that they're sunny only means that there will be fewer occasions on which they won't be producing as much power. They won't magically produce more power in ideal conditions because "it's sunny".
Of course PVs produce more power when it's sunny. And that's not just about hours of cloud cover. Go back to your Wiki page and you'll find that it matter's very much where in the world the PV cel is as to how much power it produces.
Do you take all claims made by companies at face value? I hope not.
I take them as more likely to be right than some random internet guy who's pulling figures out of his ass.
Microsoft pushed tablets for years, but there was no big demand for them until the first iPad.
Sometimes things just need the right combination of features and/or capabilities before they succeed.
Just sayin'.
Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not saying an open console couldn't succeed. If it was a winner in every other way, the openness wouldn't stop it being a success. What I'm saying is that openness itself isn't something that most people care about.
Back to phones, and Android isn't successful because it's open. It's successful and it's also open.
If you can afford a car, then use the government subsidy to buy an EV. They're available to all.
I can't afford some of the cars
We all have SOME cars we can't afford. Quit whining.
The bigger picture: The subsidies for EVs pail into insignificance compared to government subsidies to oil companies and bailouts to traditional car companies.
You don't get to personally benefit from every subsidy. Complaining about this particular one is stupid.
Strange... I linked to no blog. :)
Oh, it didn't take you long to bring up your link. I must be a fortune teller:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
That would be your crank green house effect denial link. AGAIN.
I just love it when you try to argue with me, and end up actually supporting what I wrote.
You're not fooling anyone.
That's a pretty good example of bluster from you right there. Come back when you have something to contribute.
According to wikipedia, typical photovoltaic power density is 170W/m^2.
Three mistakes here:
1) Who said Tesla is using "typical" photovoltaics?
2) Who said Tesla's solar superchargers were located in average sunlight areas? (They are not the press release covers stations in California, parts of Nevada and Arizona - VERY sunny areas.)
3) Follow the reference in Wiki and you find it comes from 2006. That's a long time ago in PV technology.
I believe you'll find my estimates were conservative
If by conservative, you mean vastly underestimating the power these things produce from the sun.
Really, Tesla does know this stuff better than you.
If you can't afford a car, you're not paying tax.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
What's missing?
And if they do they call them deniers and work to deny publishing and funding.
Provide me with a single link to a scientific paper that says there's no anthropogenic global warming that has been denied publication.
The reason they are not published is because they don't exist. Not because they've been denied publication.
There is no scientific controversy on AGW. There is only denialism, specifically crafted by Frank Luntz in a memo for the Bush Whitehouse in 2002:
http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
The fact that you talk as you do means that his approach has worked on you.
Android phones have been successful by being the cheap option. Which comes from being the open option.
Not really. It's actually widespread licensing. The completely open AOSP hasn't really been that successful. It's the version with Google's proprietary components that has been. And it's made for cheap throats because widespread licensing has meant there's cut-throat competition amongst no-name Chinese manufacturers.
There's no magic about open source. It's been entirely unsuccessful with consoles as already pointed out. And it's been largely unsuccessful with PCs.
I think you just continued to demonstrate that you don't understand the world of ordinary people. (i.e. non-geeks).
After two decades of people simply refusing to listen, my conclusion is that the problem lies with them, and not me.
Actually of course the problem lies with the geeks of the internet failing to implement a more secure email standard, when they recognised that was needed.
Heh heh! Always amusing when you come along with your one link to a blog, claiming that you and the blogger are know climate science better than all the world's climate scientists.
Here's now the green house effect works. There is no controversy about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...