No, seriously, coming up with an alternative name for doing the same thing, only criminally, is painfully wrong at worst and grammatically incorrect at best.
Sorry, I live in a major city. Therefore, it's trendier to blame republicans for everything. You don't get the 'bleeding-heart liberal' tripe until you make it ouy to generotucky.
Yeah. 'cept Microsoft has enough cash and income momentum to continue running in the black for another five to ten years, even if it's being run by retarded meerkats (all those licenses need renewed, all those certs need paid for, etc).
Well, it's not being run by retarded meerkats, but it's also not being run by mensa-spanking geniuii either. It's being run by former MBA students.
Who, in my experience, rate slightly above the retarded meerkat level.
I do like the concept of using a low power generator with rectified output in place of shocks. And I've been a long-time supporter of powering cars with on-wheel prime-offset motors powered by LiPo batteries and a power capacitor for 'get out of your own way' current draw.
Still, some of the ideas on the site kind of ignore basic engineering principles (ie: energy has to come from something; you can't draw it from nothing). For example, the idea of running the car entirely on 'bump energy' is fallacious; the bumps that your car experiences are considerably less energy than is necessary to keep your vehicle running at speed (ie: overcome its own friction), seeing as its energy cannibalized from its own power output.
Still, it would improve the efficiency of an electric vehicle (or, if coupled to a torque combiner, a gasoline/ethanol/diesel-powered vehicle).
The major problem I see with the enginewow thing is that there is no mention of how much the combined weight of all the energy recoup devices attached would weigh - a necessary consideration when designing a salable vehicle.
The conspiracy theory stuff is moot. If "they" are restricting what can be done, the appropriate avenue of design is something 'they' haven't thought of. 'They' hate that.
Meanwhile, if you don't like it, get your vehicle converted to diesel (expensive, but cost effective when you make your own fuel) or ethanol (almost pitifully easy, but less cost-effective when making your own fuel).
Take a look at England. They pay 6-7 pounds per gallon on gasoline. This, primarily, is because they have fewer subsidies on gasoline production.
The US has enough subsidization to depress the price of gas well below the 15-16 $ it would cost without.
Yeah. $15-$16. Think about that next time you bitch about $3 at the pump.
Meanwhile, converting your car to burn ethanol requires you to bore out exactly three easily replaced components, and fuel grade ethanol is currently $3 and change per gallon - though not as easily found. With the same subsidies as gasoline (of course, transferred FROM gasoline), we could have the good old days of running your car 30 miles on $0.75 worth of gas.
You realize you're also paying the salaries of the employees who have to design and implement the chips, the cost of machinery to fab them, the cost of labor to operate the fabbers, packaging, shipping, R&D, etc.
Yes, they price fixed. That doesn't mean it costs nothing to make RAM. Saying that just shows ignorance.
Price fixing is artificially inflating the price across the industry.
So prices were dropping. That just means costs were dropping even more dramatically, and the memory companies were using it as a cover for their inflated prices.
Just think. By the end of the nineties, we could have been paying under a buck for 5 megs. By today, that could be 30-40/$.
IE: Just 'cos prices are dropping doesn't mean they're not still screwing you. It just means they're being smart enough about it to convince you you're getting a deal.
"I'd much rather see any company guilty of price fixing lose the right to set its own prices."
This alone would collapse any business with variable costs, R&D, or any other nonstatc drain on their bottom line (ie: every company on the planet). If they survive the initial shock (for five to ten years), they will be able to utilize new technology and make rediculous profits on old tech.
Usually, this is only provided in combination with government mandated monopoly (like the airline industry of the pre-70's) so that the marginal costs enforced by the government are large enough to keep the business afloat.
'shareholders' punishing a 'company' involves them selling boatloads of stock - depressing its price, flooding the market with the company's stock, and reducing the company's invested funding.
Really. For people who are against corporations, slashdotters do very little to research how they work, even at the public level.
"Don't you mean 'the government?' Shareholders are the company. They probably think that breaking the law is good if it turns a profit and they don't get caught."
One: Shareholders are not the company. They are the owners of the company. They are driven by profit motive, obviously, however, doing anything illegal to the point where the shareholders can find out is WAY too high a risk for the shareholders.
Your entire statement shows a critical misunderstanding of how a publicly traded business works. Do you even know the required committees of a U.S. Board of Directors? Do you even know the purpose of the Board of Directors?
In the US, the SEC requires filings concerning a summary of all major company decisions over the course of each quarter. Between the 10-Q and the DEF-14A, any given stockholder has enough information to complain loudly to the Board of Directors.
'price fixing' usually involves a large enough segment of the industry to make that impossible. ie: you can't price fix if the price fixing group has competition that can undersell the fixed prices.
Slashdot Mirror
It uses a business card sized computer, probably not much unlike a Gumstix. Your memory, in this case, is limited by size, not cost.
Meanwhile, I'm sure a life-sized model would have a couple gigs of RAM and a kick ass processor.
Or, "Does it run L4", or "Does it run OS-X".
Or, god forbid, "Does it run Windows, and if so, how long before it starts freaking out and killing people?"
I dunno. I hear tell that some of these people even have wives.
Nah, mine's theoritically pretty good; it's just that I wasn't in the mood to go all spell-checky.
Also, I tend to enjoy making at least one word in every few sentences nonwordical.
I mean, hell, if Bush can do it, why can't I?
I was trying to spell plural("Genius"), but I got carried away.
*blink*
No, seriously, coming up with an alternative name for doing the same thing, only criminally, is painfully wrong at worst and grammatically incorrect at best.
Sorry, I live in a major city. Therefore, it's trendier to blame republicans for everything. You don't get the 'bleeding-heart liberal' tripe until you make it ouy to generotucky.
heh heh heh...
No, you don't understand.
If it's proprietary and closed source malicious software, it's "market-enabling software". It's only "bad" if those open source evildoers write it.
Oddly enough, this reminds me of Stevens and his tubes.
It's Senator Stevens (R-AK).
There. Try to get THAT visual out of your head.
Yeah. 'cept Microsoft has enough cash and income momentum to continue running in the black for another five to ten years, even if it's being run by retarded meerkats (all those licenses need renewed, all those certs need paid for, etc).
Well, it's not being run by retarded meerkats, but it's also not being run by mensa-spanking geniuii either. It's being run by former MBA students.
Who, in my experience, rate slightly above the retarded meerkat level.
Naw. Business is usually competition between better products, better marketing, and better cost controls.
Microsoft has none of these, and thus has to resort to this kind of chest beating.
'Cos it's funny to watch Microsoft yell, "Wahhhh, Google keeps playing in the plyground! I don't wanna play wif' him! Make him stop!"
I do like the concept of using a low power generator with rectified output in place of shocks. And I've been a long-time supporter of powering cars with on-wheel prime-offset motors powered by LiPo batteries and a power capacitor for 'get out of your own way' current draw.
Still, some of the ideas on the site kind of ignore basic engineering principles (ie: energy has to come from something; you can't draw it from nothing). For example, the idea of running the car entirely on 'bump energy' is fallacious; the bumps that your car experiences are considerably less energy than is necessary to keep your vehicle running at speed (ie: overcome its own friction), seeing as its energy cannibalized from its own power output.
Still, it would improve the efficiency of an electric vehicle (or, if coupled to a torque combiner, a gasoline/ethanol/diesel-powered vehicle).
The major problem I see with the enginewow thing is that there is no mention of how much the combined weight of all the energy recoup devices attached would weigh - a necessary consideration when designing a salable vehicle.
The conspiracy theory stuff is moot. If "they" are restricting what can be done, the appropriate avenue of design is something 'they' haven't thought of. 'They' hate that.
why should the shareholders be responsible for that? Seems like a clear cut principal-agent relationship failure to me.
OPEC aren't under the juristiction of the US.
Meanwhile, if you don't like it, get your vehicle converted to diesel (expensive, but cost effective when you make your own fuel) or ethanol (almost pitifully easy, but less cost-effective when making your own fuel).
Take a look at England. They pay 6-7 pounds per gallon on gasoline. This, primarily, is because they have fewer subsidies on gasoline production.
The US has enough subsidization to depress the price of gas well below the 15-16 $ it would cost without.
Yeah. $15-$16. Think about that next time you bitch about $3 at the pump.
Meanwhile, converting your car to burn ethanol requires you to bore out exactly three easily replaced components, and fuel grade ethanol is currently $3 and change per gallon - though not as easily found. With the same subsidies as gasoline (of course, transferred FROM gasoline), we could have the good old days of running your car 30 miles on $0.75 worth of gas.
*blink*
You realize you're also paying the salaries of the employees who have to design and implement the chips, the cost of machinery to fab them, the cost of labor to operate the fabbers, packaging, shipping, R&D, etc.
Yes, they price fixed. That doesn't mean it costs nothing to make RAM. Saying that just shows ignorance.
Price fixing is artificially inflating the price across the industry.
So prices were dropping. That just means costs were dropping even more dramatically, and the memory companies were using it as a cover for their inflated prices.
Just think. By the end of the nineties, we could have been paying under a buck for 5 megs. By today, that could be 30-40/$.
IE: Just 'cos prices are dropping doesn't mean they're not still screwing you. It just means they're being smart enough about it to convince you you're getting a deal.
"I'd much rather see any company guilty of price fixing lose the right to set its own prices."
This alone would collapse any business with variable costs, R&D, or any other nonstatc drain on their bottom line (ie: every company on the planet). If they survive the initial shock (for five to ten years), they will be able to utilize new technology and make rediculous profits on old tech.
Usually, this is only provided in combination with government mandated monopoly (like the airline industry of the pre-70's) so that the marginal costs enforced by the government are large enough to keep the business afloat.
And it's almost NEVER a good idea.
'shareholders' punishing a 'company' involves them selling boatloads of stock - depressing its price, flooding the market with the company's stock, and reducing the company's invested funding.
Really. For people who are against corporations, slashdotters do very little to research how they work, even at the public level.
"Don't you mean 'the government?' Shareholders are the company. They probably think that breaking the law is good if it turns a profit and they don't get caught."
One: Shareholders are not the company. They are the owners of the company. They are driven by profit motive, obviously, however, doing anything illegal to the point where the shareholders can find out is WAY too high a risk for the shareholders.
Your entire statement shows a critical misunderstanding of how a publicly traded business works. Do you even know the required committees of a U.S. Board of Directors? Do you even know the purpose of the Board of Directors?
In the US, the SEC requires filings concerning a summary of all major company decisions over the course of each quarter. Between the 10-Q and the DEF-14A, any given stockholder has enough information to complain loudly to the Board of Directors.
'price fixing' usually involves a large enough segment of the industry to make that impossible. ie: you can't price fix if the price fixing group has competition that can undersell the fixed prices.