When was the poll? If it was one taken around the time of her death, you have to remember that half the people asked won't actually remember her in office. You have to be over 50 to have been politically aware from the beginning of her premiership, and over 40 for the end.
I think this is pretty much in line with what I've said:
"On average during Mrs Thatcherâ(TM)s premiership, 40% of the public were satisfied with the way she was doing her job while 54% were dissatisfied. But at the peak of her popularity (in June 1982, after the recapture of the Falklands), 59% were satisfied with her performance, while her rating fell as low as 20% satisfied (in March 1990, the month in which there were riots in London against the introduction of the âoepoll taxâ). Average satisfaction with the way her government was running the country was 32%, compared to an average 59% who were dissatisfied. The low points were 16% satisfied in March 1981 and again in March 1990. The high point was a rating of 51% satisfied in June 1982. (Only Tony Blairâ(TM)s government, for a few months when he first took office and later briefly after the 9/11 attacks, ever had higher satisfaction ratings in our polls)." https://www.ipsos-mori.com/res...
And here's one of the ceremonial burnings of her effigy when she died. In one of the communities she destroyed. This has never happened with any other prime minister. None has been as hated.
All varieties of IC vehicles will be gone soon enough, NG, diesel and gasoline. Not because they pollute. Because they're enormously less efficient than electrical vehicles. The only benefit IC vehicles have right now is that gasoline, NG and diesel store larger amounts of energy by volume and weight than electrical storage does, and offer less maintainance of the energy supply for the vehicle. But those advantages continue to erode. Eventually the benefits will fall the other side of the line, and that'll be the end of that.
True.
One of the obvious consequences of this inevitability is that the very small amount of extra exhaust products generated by VW's software methodology in actual vehicle use isn't likely to make an actual difference to anyone in terms of pollution.
Non-sequiteur. Possibly you haven't appreciated that this isn't mainly about greenhouse gasses, but about pollutants that cause local heath problems in cities, and thus directly harm and even kill people. That most certainly *IS* a difference.
Again, in YOUR real world maybe. That only signifies that YOU are in a dodgy company or dodgy industry, and YOU are willing to go along with it. It's not the general "real world" case that you seem to think it is. In 30 years of being a software engineer it's never happened to me. Quite a contrast to your "all the time".
In the UK it was reported on Newsnight (TV Programme) back in November last year. So it wasn't just engineers at VW that knew about it. What's surprising is the shit only hit the fan now.
I find it odd to hear how programmers seem so abused by PHBs. Maybe it's an American thing, but in the UK, I've always found that employers want to keep hold of skilled people like programmers, because new ones are hard to find and take a while to get up to speed. This means that saying no is always possible.
(Nothing to to with official engineer status and ethics. There's no general requirement for engineer certifications for programmers here.)
In the real world, however, we've all dealt with people who refuse to do anything except by phone or in person.
I haven't. Not in 30 years of coding. But then I've never been asked to do anything illegal either.
Certainly I've had people ask for things verbally, and sometimes I've done them and sometimes I've asked them to submit a defect report. And of course sometimes I've ignored or forgotten them - the other way to get them to write an official report. But when I've asked for a defect report, no one's ever refused.
(How did we ever manage in the days before defect tracking and SCM!)
No doubt you said the same of Apple in the early naughties. Yet that's what Apple did. And that's exactly the path that Tesla is on now in the Car industry.
We get it. You're a conservative. You lack imagination. You can't imagine anything changing. Yet it does.
Same processor, same RAM, same chipsets, same hard drives. Wow they have a barely different BIOS and put it in a fancy case.
It's comments like that that make it sure you couldn't forecast the future of the car business if it slapped you in the face.
If you think people that work in the auto industry are idiots then why don't we see you showing us how brilliant you are?
Yes I think they're idiots. And I'll leave it to the likes of Apple and Tesla to show them how quality engineering is done, much as the Japanese companies did a generation ago.
But thanks for ignorantly painting me with a broad brush despite knowing nothing about me.
You explicitly claimed to be in the auto industry so I took that at face value. If you want to withdraw that now, it's up to you. But it's nothing to do with me making assumptions either way.
if you think the big auto makers aren't watching them closely you are deluded.
Of course they are watching them closely. Just as Microsoft and Nokia watched Apple, and were completely incapable of saving themselves.
GM could make a car very similar to the Tesla very quickly if they think there is a business case for it.
a) They couldn't. GM can't even work out how to manufacture one of their own concept cars. b) They're too stupid to see the business case. They are still only making EVs because Californian law means they have to. They are blind to the future.
Cars have been around for 130 years. What exactly could Apple do that would make a car better?
Electric and autonomous, obviously. Of course there are other's already working on those, but there has been with every other market Apple's gone into.
? Apple is not getting into the car business simply because there is not enough turn over, people hold onto cars for 10 + years.
Actually people start trading cars in after about 3 years. Especially leased and fleet cars. Some keep for 10+ years but it's not standard. On average they'll keep a car longer than a Mac. But not that much longer. Twice as long tops.
On the flip side, cars are a huge market, with big sticker prices. There's lots of money in it.
These are the same reason why they're not going to make a tv, Apple has said so.
There's a combination of reasons not to get into TVs. Different from the combination of factors in play with TVs.
In any case, the fact is that Apple ARE doing a car project. We know they've made the car engineer hires, and we know they've made enquiries of the test track that all the companies do their initial autonomous vehicle testing on.
And the only reason Bob Lutz is talking about it is because he knows it's happening.
Indeed, and not much has changed. GM still believes that fossil fuel is the future, and only manufactures the limited EVs it does because of California regulations requiring it. They are a dinosaur, almost as old as the fuel they worship.
1) Apple already has long experience of Apple Authorised Dealers for computers. So they could indeed go for a dealer network, it's not out of character.
2) They could do Tesla's model of mall showrooms, internet ordering and delivery to the customer. They have the advantage of already having the mall showrooms, and the internet ordering already in place.
3) Apple is rather better placed to get up to speed with international sales. Where there isn't the ridiculous legal restrictions on having to use third party dealers. Apple can wait for the restrictive states to see sense. Sales there are not essential.
Musk has managed to do it not just with a car company, but with a space company, at the same time. And Apple has has the advantage of seeing what Musk (and the dinosaur car companies) have done with EVs up to now. Yet it's a market that hasn't really taken off in a big way yet.
For sure Apple can do another iPod or iPhone here.
You can put Windows on a Macintosh and it would be nearly indistinguishable from a Dell if you can't see the badge.
I look around the office at the POS Windows laptops that people have and I say no, that's not so.
I'm in the auto industry myself and I'm both an industrial engineer and an accountant.
Then what you say is worth about as much as what Bob Lutz said. And the Nokia engineers in the year before the iPhone. If you're in the industry, you see how things are currently done, and you come to believe that's the way it must be done. And that's the point when a newcomer rolls right over you.
Profits. All the competitors to the Model S are profitable whereas the Model S is basically break even at best.
Tesla is still in startup mode. Remember how many years Amazon had no profit because they were expanding their infrastructure?
Other motor companies have to make profits because they are mature companies with little growth, and their shareholders demand dividends. That's not true of startups in their growth phase like Tesla.
The Android phones from Samsung that compete with the specs of iPhone have similar prices to the iPhone. Don't confuse with cheap shitty Androids from Samsung and others.
Slashdot Mirror
When was the poll? If it was one taken around the time of her death, you have to remember that half the people asked won't actually remember her in office. You have to be over 50 to have been politically aware from the beginning of her premiership, and over 40 for the end.
I think this is pretty much in line with what I've said:
"On average during Mrs Thatcherâ(TM)s premiership, 40% of the public were satisfied with the way she was doing her job while 54% were dissatisfied. But at the peak of her popularity (in June 1982, after the recapture of the Falklands), 59% were satisfied with her performance, while her rating fell as low as 20% satisfied (in March 1990, the month in which there were riots in London against the introduction of the âoepoll taxâ).
Average satisfaction with the way her government was running the country was 32%, compared to an average 59% who were dissatisfied. The low points were 16% satisfied in March 1981 and again in March 1990. The high point was a rating of 51% satisfied in June 1982. (Only Tony Blairâ(TM)s government, for a few months when he first took office and later briefly after the 9/11 attacks, ever had higher satisfaction ratings in our polls)."
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/res...
And here's one of the ceremonial burnings of her effigy when she died. In one of the communities she destroyed. This has never happened with any other prime minister. None has been as hated.
All varieties of IC vehicles will be gone soon enough, NG, diesel and gasoline. Not because they pollute. Because they're enormously less efficient than electrical vehicles. The only benefit IC vehicles have right now is that gasoline, NG and diesel store larger amounts of energy by volume and weight than electrical storage does, and offer less maintainance of the energy supply for the vehicle. But those advantages continue to erode. Eventually the benefits will fall the other side of the line, and that'll be the end of that.
True.
One of the obvious consequences of this inevitability is that the very small amount of extra exhaust products generated by VW's software methodology in actual vehicle use isn't likely to make an actual difference to anyone in terms of pollution.
Non-sequiteur. Possibly you haven't appreciated that this isn't mainly about greenhouse gasses, but about pollutants that cause local heath problems in cities, and thus directly harm and even kill people. That most certainly *IS* a difference.
Again, in YOUR real world maybe. That only signifies that YOU are in a dodgy company or dodgy industry, and YOU are willing to go along with it. It's not the general "real world" case that you seem to think it is. In 30 years of being a software engineer it's never happened to me. Quite a contrast to your "all the time".
In the UK it was reported on Newsnight (TV Programme) back in November last year. So it wasn't just engineers at VW that knew about it. What's surprising is the shit only hit the fan now.
You're only revealing your own lack of integrity.
Speak for yourself. You're a right wing loon, so I'm not surprised your integrity is for sale. Many people do have integrity.
I find it odd to hear how programmers seem so abused by PHBs. Maybe it's an American thing, but in the UK, I've always found that employers want to keep hold of skilled people like programmers, because new ones are hard to find and take a while to get up to speed. This means that saying no is always possible.
(Nothing to to with official engineer status and ethics. There's no general requirement for engineer certifications for programmers here.)
In the real world, however, we've all dealt with people who refuse to do anything except by phone or in person.
I haven't. Not in 30 years of coding. But then I've never been asked to do anything illegal either.
Certainly I've had people ask for things verbally, and sometimes I've done them and sometimes I've asked them to submit a defect report. And of course sometimes I've ignored or forgotten them - the other way to get them to write an official report. But when I've asked for a defect report, no one's ever refused.
(How did we ever manage in the days before defect tracking and SCM!)
No doubt you said the same of Apple in the early naughties. Yet that's what Apple did. And that's exactly the path that Tesla is on now in the Car industry.
We get it. You're a conservative. You lack imagination. You can't imagine anything changing. Yet it does.
Same processor, same RAM, same chipsets, same hard drives. Wow they have a barely different BIOS and put it in a fancy case.
It's comments like that that make it sure you couldn't forecast the future of the car business if it slapped you in the face.
If you think people that work in the auto industry are idiots then why don't we see you showing us how brilliant you are?
Yes I think they're idiots. And I'll leave it to the likes of Apple and Tesla to show them how quality engineering is done, much as the Japanese companies did a generation ago.
But thanks for ignorantly painting me with a broad brush despite knowing nothing about me.
You explicitly claimed to be in the auto industry so I took that at face value. If you want to withdraw that now, it's up to you. But it's nothing to do with me making assumptions either way.
if you think the big auto makers aren't watching them closely you are deluded.
Of course they are watching them closely. Just as Microsoft and Nokia watched Apple, and were completely incapable of saving themselves.
GM could make a car very similar to the Tesla very quickly if they think there is a business case for it.
a) They couldn't. GM can't even work out how to manufacture one of their own concept cars.
b) They're too stupid to see the business case. They are still only making EVs because Californian law means they have to. They are blind to the future.
It doesn't really matter how people justify buying them.
Cars have been around for 130 years. What exactly could Apple do that would make a car better?
Electric and autonomous, obviously. Of course there are other's already working on those, but there has been with every other market Apple's gone into.
? Apple is not getting into the car business simply because there is not enough turn over, people hold onto cars for 10 + years.
Actually people start trading cars in after about 3 years. Especially leased and fleet cars. Some keep for 10+ years but it's not standard. On average they'll keep a car longer than a Mac. But not that much longer. Twice as long tops.
On the flip side, cars are a huge market, with big sticker prices. There's lots of money in it.
These are the same reason why they're not going to make a tv, Apple has said so.
There's a combination of reasons not to get into TVs. Different from the combination of factors in play with TVs.
In any case, the fact is that Apple ARE doing a car project. We know they've made the car engineer hires, and we know they've made enquiries of the test track that all the companies do their initial autonomous vehicle testing on.
And the only reason Bob Lutz is talking about it is because he knows it's happening.
It may seem like the iPhone has been around since 1997, but it's only been since 2007.
Yes. Americans are strange. Always trying to compete with everyone. Even if it's by buying a bigger but lower quality car then their neighbour.
Indeed, and not much has changed. GM still believes that fossil fuel is the future, and only manufactures the limited EVs it does because of California regulations requiring it. They are a dinosaur, almost as old as the fuel they worship.
A professional camera isn't a big enough market for Apple to bother with.
1) Apple already has long experience of Apple Authorised Dealers for computers. So they could indeed go for a dealer network, it's not out of character.
2) They could do Tesla's model of mall showrooms, internet ordering and delivery to the customer. They have the advantage of already having the mall showrooms, and the internet ordering already in place.
3) Apple is rather better placed to get up to speed with international sales. Where there isn't the ridiculous legal restrictions on having to use third party dealers. Apple can wait for the restrictive states to see sense. Sales there are not essential.
I wouldn't. Like divorces, once a person has had one bankruptcy, they are much more likely to have another.
Musk has managed to do it not just with a car company, but with a space company, at the same time. And Apple has has the advantage of seeing what Musk (and the dinosaur car companies) have done with EVs up to now. Yet it's a market that hasn't really taken off in a big way yet.
For sure Apple can do another iPod or iPhone here.
Ah ha. Another buggy whip manufacturing employee.
You can put Windows on a Macintosh and it would be nearly indistinguishable from a Dell if you can't see the badge.
I look around the office at the POS Windows laptops that people have and I say no, that's not so.
I'm in the auto industry myself and I'm both an industrial engineer and an accountant.
Then what you say is worth about as much as what Bob Lutz said. And the Nokia engineers in the year before the iPhone. If you're in the industry, you see how things are currently done, and you come to believe that's the way it must be done. And that's the point when a newcomer rolls right over you.
But in this case they can see Teslas growth potential, whereas the Slashdot naysayers are ignorant of it.
Profits. All the competitors to the Model S are profitable whereas the Model S is basically break even at best.
Tesla is still in startup mode. Remember how many years Amazon had no profit because they were expanding their infrastructure?
Other motor companies have to make profits because they are mature companies with little growth, and their shareholders demand dividends. That's not true of startups in their growth phase like Tesla.
Tesla's impact on the market, thus far, is squat. Tesla's ... sold a grand total of 35,000 cars in 2014.... Mr. Musk ... is ... a flea.
And Ferrari sells about 7-8000 per year. Yet you don't get this level of whiney bitching about that luxury car manufacturer.
The problem is in your psyche, not Tesla's sales.
The Android phones from Samsung that compete with the specs of iPhone have similar prices to the iPhone. Don't confuse with cheap shitty Androids from Samsung and others.