Most politicians don't ever change direction on some opinion they formed decades ago, becuase they believe that to be seen to do so is political suicide. This is true even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their opinion is no longer relevant or even correct thanks to the world having changed. I don't know why people ever credit mindlessly sticking to one opinion as necessarily being a good thing. Guess what, the world is a dynamic environment. I think whats actually happening with Trump is that he is changing his mind on stuff as he learns more about it or as situations change, and thats a GOOD thing and something I would definitely want in a President, or any politician/leader.
I think Trump is actually saying what he genuinely feels (warts and all), which If true then by the dictionary definition of demagogue he CAN'T be one.
I would pay on 2 conditions: 1) as near stock Android as possible i.e absolutely no extra bloatware and no features locked out by the carrier (such as hotspot) 2) its available within say a month of the official Google release (which should be easily possible if all you're doing is re-adding a few existing device drivers and not wasting time integrating other crapware).
>> The world doesn't need one more way for humans to kill themselves
Sure we do. Humans keep removing all sources of natural selection and thats a bad thing. Its not the job of the government to turn the whole world into nanny state and put rubber bumpers on every sharp corner.
We should let these weak, stupid people that have a habitual need to suck on an electric tit carry on and kill themselves and do the rest of the world a favor.
>> Maintenance is an area where electric cars may have a substantial advantage
I strongly suspect dealers across the nation are already figuring out ways to not pass the cost savings on, given how after-sales servicing is where a very large part of their profit comes from,
>> The NT Kernel has far fewer security advisories than does Linux. Sure because Microsoft doesn't make them public very often, whereas all of Linux's dirty laundry is open for all to see.
>> It was more carefully planned, Thats just ridiculous. Consider how much effort, (even just in broad brush terms of numbers of engineers, different companies and universities are working on it) hav gone into developing Unix, and are continuously happening on the Linux kernel, compared to NT kernel.
>> it is far more successful on the desktop.... and hardly even on the radar for servers... I would also argue its only popular on the desktop as a result of monopolistic practices and marketing rather than actual merit.
>> the complete code has already leaked illegally leaked at one point in time is not even close to the same as "current information" and "freely available"
>> any action that Microsoft takes will likely improve general OS security, even if the data mining ramps up. History does not back up either of your points.
Why would anyone want to replace a perfectly good free/opensource kernel with a Microsoft one? All you're doing is adding lock-in to Microsoft, along with the prerequisite closedness, weak security, built-in data mining and unecessary extra complication. To me that is going in exactly the wrong direction, and furthermore I would never buy a monstrosity like that.
I suspect you're right, but I also wonder how much of a "North Vietnam effect" is also happening in China, in that people are either effectively brainwashed by the system, or are too afraid to admit otherwise, so it amounts to the same thing.
I think you just spent 3 paragraphs agreeing with me, except that part where you assume electric cars maintenance will be cheaper to the end user. I do agree in theory it should be, but the fact is that everyone with a car has already accepted and is used to the need to pay $N/month for maintenance just as a part of owning a car, so the price the market will bear has already been set. You can bet that dealers etc aren't going to let that slip, especially since (according to my friend who works at a dealership) its not selling cars but the after-sales servicing where they currently make most of their profit. All the lack of moving parts will mean is their profit margins will get bigger.
I totally agree with both your points, however your assessment that they will never become the majority of the market depends on two things: 1) No government intervention to create an artificial market (i.e. taxing the hell out of gasoline/gas cars, or massive subsidies to buy/run "alternative fuel" cars) 2) Despite overwhelming scientific consensus and even direct physical evidence, there' still a general lack of concern and even outright denial in the worlds largest polluters (the US and China), that we have a serious human-caused pollution problem that we need to take significant action on immediately.
No one can fortell the future but I'd be very surprised if both of these areas didn't see large scale changes over the next 10 years.
>> If your goal is to reduce energy consumption, petrol or whatever resource, you want to use it as efficiently as possible.
Presuming that by "reducing energy consumption" he really means "saving money", he's entirely playing on peoples existing misconceptions that "green" cars are also intended to save the owner money, which is entirely not true.
They're all and only about doing something to reduce emissions from fossil fuel emissions (so don't take into account any extra pollutants from manufacture or recycling of batteries etc). The total cost per mile of ownership of a "green" car is very likely going to be significantly more than say a small efficient conventional gas car like a Toyota Yaris, which is fine if your priorities really are saving the atmosphere not saving money, so please lets get off this stupid misconception once and for all.
No thats a basic economics mistake. The market cost of something is not determined by the cost of its production, but what people are prepared to pay for it.
One great example is nuclear power. Back in the 50's, everyone was saying that nuclear power meant no one would even get a power bill any more, yet here we are today paying $100's/month for power even in countries like France where nuclear generation accounts for over 75% of their electricity supply. Why? Only because they can get away with charging that much for it, even if the amount of power an average house uses costs them practically nothing to generate.
What I'm saying is that rich people will fight like hell to keep the status quo because its keeping them on top. And because they're also the ones with all the power (because money == power) so sadly your utopia has about a snowflakes chance in hell of ever happening.
His argument seems to hinge on declarations not being part of the code, and are somehow automatic consequences of the implementation or at best trivial afterthoughts. It seems to me that APIs are actually the toughest part to get right and it takes experience and skill to design a logical, flexible and useful API, Hardly zero value stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Mybe your dad is a demagogue
Most politicians don't ever change direction on some opinion they formed decades ago, becuase they believe that to be seen to do so is political suicide. This is true even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their opinion is no longer relevant or even correct thanks to the world having changed.
I don't know why people ever credit mindlessly sticking to one opinion as necessarily being a good thing. Guess what, the world is a dynamic environment.
I think whats actually happening with Trump is that he is changing his mind on stuff as he learns more about it or as situations change, and thats a GOOD thing and something I would definitely want in a President, or any politician/leader.
I think Trump is actually saying what he genuinely feels (warts and all), which If true then by the dictionary definition of demagogue he CAN'T be one.
You know.you don't actually HAVE to join or keep using Facebook right?
I would pay on 2 conditions:
1) as near stock Android as possible i.e absolutely no extra bloatware and no features locked out by the carrier (such as hotspot)
2) its available within say a month of the official Google release (which should be easily possible if all you're doing is re-adding a few existing device drivers and not wasting time integrating other crapware).
>> The world doesn't need one more way for humans to kill themselves
Sure we do. Humans keep removing all sources of natural selection and thats a bad thing. Its not the job of the government to turn the whole world into nanny state and put rubber bumpers on every sharp corner.
We should let these weak, stupid people that have a habitual need to suck on an electric tit carry on and kill themselves and do the rest of the world a favor.
>> Microsoft Is Laying Off 1,850 to Streamline Its Smartphone Business
It still has one?
and another one...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
And here's my source: http://www.jdpower.com/press-r...
>> Maintenance is an area where electric cars may have a substantial advantage
I strongly suspect dealers across the nation are already figuring out ways to not pass the cost savings on, given how after-sales servicing is where a very large part of their profit comes from,
>> The NT Kernel has far fewer security advisories than does Linux.
Sure because Microsoft doesn't make them public very often, whereas all of Linux's dirty laundry is open for all to see.
>> It was more carefully planned,
Thats just ridiculous. Consider how much effort, (even just in broad brush terms of numbers of engineers, different companies and universities are working on it) hav gone into developing Unix, and are continuously happening on the Linux kernel, compared to NT kernel.
>> it is far more successful on the desktop. ... and hardly even on the radar for servers... I would also argue its only popular on the desktop as a result of monopolistic practices and marketing rather than actual merit.
>> the complete code has already leaked
illegally leaked at one point in time is not even close to the same as "current information" and "freely available"
>> any action that Microsoft takes will likely improve general OS security, even if the data mining ramps up.
History does not back up either of your points.
Wow your whole post is really bullshit.
>> you talked about how electric cars don't save money, rather than about how the current market conditions don't save money.
Of course I did. Given the right market conditions flying to the moon would be free.
>> I've never bought into a maintenance plan. I don't know a lot of people who have, but I know they're popular.
Uhh.. ok...
>> They're notably popular among Volkswagen owners, since maintenance plans are pushed heavily by that manufacturer.
You realise that VWs are notably unreliable and also very expensive to fix when they go wrong?
>> The Chevy Volt is actually a lot cheaper than the Toyota Prius, and the Toyota Prius is a cheap car.
Umm nope: Volt: $33,995 - $38,345 Prius: $25,035 - $30,835 (caranddriver.com)
So no, the Prius is NOT a cheap car. The Toyota Yaris is under 15k.
>> Toyota Prius C has a total-cost-per-year of $5,000 over a 5-year life
Which is right before it needs a battery replacement at a cost of $6000...
Why would anyone want to replace a perfectly good free/opensource kernel with a Microsoft one? All you're doing is adding lock-in to Microsoft, along with the prerequisite closedness, weak security, built-in data mining and unecessary extra complication.
To me that is going in exactly the wrong direction, and furthermore I would never buy a monstrosity like that.
I suspect you're right, but I also wonder how much of a "North Vietnam effect" is also happening in China, in that people are either effectively brainwashed by the system, or are too afraid to admit otherwise, so it amounts to the same thing.
I think you just spent 3 paragraphs agreeing with me, except that part where you assume electric cars maintenance will be cheaper to the end user.
I do agree in theory it should be, but the fact is that everyone with a car has already accepted and is used to the need to pay $N/month for maintenance just as a part of owning a car, so the price the market will bear has already been set.
You can bet that dealers etc aren't going to let that slip, especially since (according to my friend who works at a dealership) its not selling cars but the after-sales servicing where they currently make most of their profit. All the lack of moving parts will mean is their profit margins will get bigger.
I totally agree with both your points, however your assessment that they will never become the majority of the market depends on two things:
1) No government intervention to create an artificial market (i.e. taxing the hell out of gasoline/gas cars, or massive subsidies to buy/run "alternative fuel" cars)
2) Despite overwhelming scientific consensus and even direct physical evidence, there' still a general lack of concern and even outright denial in the worlds largest polluters (the US and China), that we have a serious human-caused pollution problem that we need to take significant action on immediately.
No one can fortell the future but I'd be very surprised if both of these areas didn't see large scale changes over the next 10 years.
>> hydrogen has a bad tendency to infiltrate the metal in the tank and make it brittle, increasing the risk of explosion
This is exactly why they're mostly made out of composites these days.
>> If your goal is to reduce energy consumption, petrol or whatever resource, you want to use it as efficiently as possible.
Presuming that by "reducing energy consumption" he really means "saving money", he's entirely playing on peoples existing misconceptions that "green" cars are also intended to save the owner money, which is entirely not true.
They're all and only about doing something to reduce emissions from fossil fuel emissions (so don't take into account any extra pollutants from manufacture or recycling of batteries etc). The total cost per mile of ownership of a "green" car is very likely going to be significantly more than say a small efficient conventional gas car like a Toyota Yaris, which is fine if your priorities really are saving the atmosphere not saving money, so please lets get off this stupid misconception once and for all.
Please just let VB die already.
No thats a basic economics mistake. The market cost of something is not determined by the cost of its production, but what people are prepared to pay for it.
One great example is nuclear power. Back in the 50's, everyone was saying that nuclear power meant no one would even get a power bill any more, yet here we are today paying $100's/month for power even in countries like France where nuclear generation accounts for over 75% of their electricity supply. Why? Only because they can get away with charging that much for it, even if the amount of power an average house uses costs them practically nothing to generate.
What I'm saying is that rich people will fight like hell to keep the status quo because its keeping them on top. And because they're also the ones with all the power (because money == power) so sadly your utopia has about a snowflakes chance in hell of ever happening.
Money is an absraction of value derived from providing something of perceived value to society.
If you never contribute anything to society, what makes you think that society will want to take care of you?
Come to one of the gun shows here in Arizona you can walk in and buy one quite legally.
yeah. computer service engineers that are entrusted to do only the most menial stuff.
,, and where will you be getting the money to do that stuff from if you're not working?
Dunno that I agree with Page's stance at all.
His argument seems to hinge on declarations not being part of the code, and are somehow automatic consequences of the implementation or at best trivial afterthoughts. It seems to me that APIs are actually the toughest part to get right and it takes experience and skill to design a logical, flexible and useful API, Hardly zero value stuff.