Why are you being so dishonest about this? Is it because your unanswerable rhetorical question to push a luddite ideological barrow was pointed out? How about you expel your toxic political agendas into places where they are a better fit instead of attempting to drive the enthusiasm out of the kiddies here?
Yes but their leaders don't really give a shit about what the members think. If you were an NRA member would you like to be represented by a guy that sold guns to an Islamic terrorist group less than a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines? Don't like it? Tough. Oliver North is not moving for anyone. He's also the guy that pushed for suspected terrorists on the no-fly list to be allowed to buy guns. If they had honest votes from members choosing their leadership he wouldn't have been chosen.
But how economical is it to modify the existing multi-billion dollar battery factories to make these solid state batteries?
A bit different to your new one isn't it?
Is marginal (using the economic definition of "marginal") progress worth any cost, no matter how high that cost?
Your new carefully shifted goalpost scores a win! Of course paying any price for a marginal shift is ridiculous if considered alone. However you didn't write marginal before and the article suggests the improvement is going to be game changing so I really do not know where you are getting that from unless it's just because you want to argue about something else.
"I've been a tech journalist on and off for 21 years and I can't remember any company having a worse month news cycle-wise than Uber is now."
Funny how the tech journalist forgot about Enron and later a few dozen companies that some very bad press around 2008. Exxon, Union Carbide and so on had their bad press a bit more than 21 years back, I suppose, and TEPCO (Fukishima) are in Japan.
But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis
True, not having to pay tax, insurance, decent wages and expecting drivers to pay for vehicles makes it more efficient than a law abiding taxi company.
This is the kind of thing a DA would put in front of a judge if they wanted to subpoena Uber's business records for an entire city
Uber seems to be one step ahead of that too. Uber's office in Australia was raided by tax officials but they came away without even a list of drivers because according to Uber that information is only available to the head office in the Netherlands.
For some reason, you have this idea that I said not to build the factory.
All I asked was whether it would be economically viable IF very expensive.
The latter question is utterly nonsensical on the announcement of an invention with no process costed so clearly the attitude expressed as "not to build the factory" was behind it. Nice attempt at a dodge but it's very obvious what you were doing with your question along the lines of "but is progress worth it?"
Clearly something is economically viable if it is, and not if it is not - hence your question was very clearly a rhetorical one designed to push the Edsel Ford idea of factory management of just sitting around and hoping the money keeps rolling in.
Initially they did collaborate on the lander but the NASA people had their funding cut and without NASA involvement the ESA people couldn't use the bits already worked on due to various patent agreements being with NASA. Result - splat - kind of expected for a first of it's kind lander instead of being able to build on earlier success.
Spoken like someone who only takes one facile view of very complicated issues.
The irony of that statement is you are simplisticly casting yourself in my role without even attempting to find out that I'm an engineer that some years back worked in the manufacturing industry - you removed the complexity and placed a very simple strawman in the place of someone who has been considering this issue since the 1980s. Also I gave two examples - two views of companies that were very reluctant to upgrade their processess and suffered very gravely.
I could have been as insulting as you have, but instead of pointing out appalling ignonance on your part I placed the spotlight on two examples of others who acted in the same appalling ignorance as you expressed. Factories that do not upgrade process lines shut down while the work is carried out elsewhere in places that do. Haven't you heard of the "rust belt"?
But how economical is it to modify the existing multi-billion dollar battery factories to make these solid state batteries?
Spoken just like Edsel Ford or just about anyone managing a US Steel plant since World War Two. You do something like that or you eventually become far less relevant to the economy.
Yes, yes - a history lesson I could have given myself - why bother. The important bit - two years later is "soon after"? Why did you do that? Was it a mistake or deliberate? If it was a mistake why are you avoiding addressing that, and if it was deliberate - get a fucking life!!!!
Thanks, that's interesting that it's on two different types of systems and must be very annoying. It turns out that what I thought was a massive variety of stuff with no trouble is really a lot of machines with Nvidia graphics hardware of similar vintage.
I've never seen those problems on a few hundred machines. What sort of hardware does your special snowflake machine have? Maybe a driver update has fixed it.
It's kind of a big deal because it's a new step into someone else's war - Saudi Arabia, that country where we had to put a lot of pressure on them before they finally made it illegal to send money and guns to ISIL/Daash. It needs a bit of picking over to see if we are being screwed over by a faction that wants us all dead or not. Not Trumps fault in any way, but a big deal just the same.
So a second line of questions are in place to ensure the visa and person are correct when entering the USA.
I don't think so. It looks to me like pointless busywork in the form of harassment to demonstrate that the people on the checkpoint are working hard to keep us "safe" so are not overstaffed and should not lose their jobs.
Here is another incident that made someone who loved America (117 trips!) decide it's not worth coming back: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-that-moment-i-loathed-america-i-loathed-the-entire-country?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-Subscribe-010317
I find it interesting that Khrushchev lost his job over this.
sr
Especially since he kept his job until October 1964 and the Cuban missile crisis was over on 28th October 1962. What is interesting (not really, just annoying I suppose) is "raymorris" claiming that Khrushchev lost his job over this despite the two years that he led the USSR after the Cuban missile crisis.
Two years later is "soon after"? Is this some sort of pathetic debating game to you where the truth does not matter? Also among those incidents why didn't you mention the U2 pilot who gave his life for his country when he was shot down over Cuba? That's a larger potential trigger than anything you mentioned.
Andrei Gromyko, agrees with the general consensus that Kennedy amd his ambassador also expertly manipulated Kruschev into a situation
Expertly manipulated him into offering a deal and then offering a WORSE deal the next day? Now that's some manipulation.
Pointless sabre rattling against a country that has already demonstrated that they are prepared to sacrifice millions of their people's lives is something beyond stupid - yet it happened. There is no way to "win" in such a situation.
though Kruschev himself didn't admit he was outfoxed
Because he wasn't. Kennedy took things to the brink and then found he shouldn't have been playing chicken with the USSR. Kennedy did a lot of great things but there's no point putting forward revisionist history to build him up even more. The Cuba missile crisis was a massive fuckup and from records of the time there was a lot of running around like headless chickens - a President who kept his cool wouldn't have ended up in that mess in the first place.
Sexual harassment is nearly non-existent in the fortune 500 precisely
Since every now and again we read about it being perpetrated by people in those companies who are famous enough to be household names I very much doubt it.
A few months ago there was a story about her making the rounds on how she'd moved from studying math at a 6th-grade level to doing graduate-level quantum mechanics in just 18 months
It's nowhere near unique so not unlikely. To sum up, high school mathematics is generally shit so someone who work hard can get through it in a couple of months and then get through a couple of years of undergraduate mathematics in a year if they have a tight focus. I've seen a few students do that when transitioning from a trade to an engineering degree.
Why is pretending to be stupid to push a flawed argument such a thing now? You guys are not brain damaged former DJ's coping with the aftermath of years of cocaine addiction with your rants televised for entertainment. Sorry to pick on you rtb61 when you are just following a trend, but it's pointless, self-demeaning and not even funny.
Women who unjustly ruin men's lives with false accusations
Since there's plenty of guys who haven't had their life ruined by real accusations until eventually the numbers piled up I think the false stuff has to filed under "too rare to matter" despite it being a staple of TV drama these days. Phil Spector had a lot of "false accusations", so did Bill Crosby, and it didn't slow down their careers until they crossed that extra line leaving a lot of undeniable evidence just like it hasn't slowed down a lot of others with a much lower profile. You can see it yourself if you work in a large place and think of all of the current executives who have a reputation due to being accused earlier, false or not, and still have their executive jobs.
Sure, sure. But all of this caution should not be necessary — unless you are really threatening
Readers you may think you are a weedy little guy but to a small lady who weighs what you could bench press a dozen times you are a threat. To larger ladies that you can outrun you are a threat. I didn't really pick up on that until I came to the city and noticed that many women were physically very weak from almost zero levels of exercise so that even a below average male was a physical threat to them. If you get in the face of a girl who has to rely on you being a nice guy for her safety that can really scare them until they get to know you. On the first shift I worked alone with one petite lady at one job she kept a large garden implement beside her desk for protection because she was scared of me on sight (we'd never spoken before that), and I was the shy skinny guy picked last at sports.
Another strange prohibition
No. It's called taking your work seriously instead of treating it like a playpen.
Slashdot Mirror
No
Obviously not.
Why are you being so dishonest about this?
Is it because your unanswerable rhetorical question to push a luddite ideological barrow was pointed out?
How about you expel your toxic political agendas into places where they are a better fit instead of attempting to drive the enthusiasm out of the kiddies here?
The truth is that even the majority of NRA members back more background checks on all gun purchases.
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
Yes but their leaders don't really give a shit about what the members think. If you were an NRA member would you like to be represented by a guy that sold guns to an Islamic terrorist group less than a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines? Don't like it? Tough. Oliver North is not moving for anyone. He's also the guy that pushed for suspected terrorists on the no-fly list to be allowed to buy guns. If they had honest votes from members choosing their leadership he wouldn't have been chosen.
A bit different to your new one isn't it?
Your new carefully shifted goalpost scores a win! Of course paying any price for a marginal shift is ridiculous if considered alone. However you didn't write marginal before and the article suggests the improvement is going to be game changing so I really do not know where you are getting that from unless it's just because you want to argue about something else.
Funny how the tech journalist forgot about Enron and later a few dozen companies that some very bad press around 2008. Exxon, Union Carbide and so on had their bad press a bit more than 21 years back, I suppose, and TEPCO (Fukishima) are in Japan.
True, not having to pay tax, insurance, decent wages and expecting drivers to pay for vehicles makes it more efficient than a law abiding taxi company.
When we started using more DC electric motors.
Uber seems to be one step ahead of that too. Uber's office in Australia was raided by tax officials but they came away without even a list of drivers because according to Uber that information is only available to the head office in the Netherlands.
For some reason, you have this idea that I said not to build the factory.
All I asked was whether it would be economically viable IF very expensive.
The latter question is utterly nonsensical on the announcement of an invention with no process costed so clearly the attitude expressed as "not to build the factory" was behind it. Nice attempt at a dodge but it's very obvious what you were doing with your question along the lines of "but is progress worth it?"
Clearly something is economically viable if it is, and not if it is not - hence your question was very clearly a rhetorical one designed to push the Edsel Ford idea of factory management of just sitting around and hoping the money keeps rolling in.
Initially they did collaborate on the lander but the NASA people had their funding cut and without NASA involvement the ESA people couldn't use the bits already worked on due to various patent agreements being with NASA.
Result - splat - kind of expected for a first of it's kind lander instead of being able to build on earlier success.
The irony of that statement is you are simplisticly casting yourself in my role without even attempting to find out that I'm an engineer that some years back worked in the manufacturing industry - you removed the complexity and placed a very simple strawman in the place of someone who has been considering this issue since the 1980s.
Also I gave two examples - two views of companies that were very reluctant to upgrade their processess and suffered very gravely.
I could have been as insulting as you have, but instead of pointing out appalling ignonance on your part I placed the spotlight on two examples of others who acted in the same appalling ignorance as you expressed.
Factories that do not upgrade process lines shut down while the work is carried out elsewhere in places that do. Haven't you heard of the "rust belt"?
But how economical is it to modify the existing multi-billion dollar battery factories to make these solid state batteries?
Spoken just like Edsel Ford or just about anyone managing a US Steel plant since World War Two.
You do something like that or you eventually become far less relevant to the economy.
Yes, yes - a history lesson I could have given myself - why bother.
The important bit - two years later is "soon after"? Why did you do that? Was it a mistake or deliberate? If it was a mistake why are you avoiding addressing that, and if it was deliberate - get a fucking life!!!!
Thanks, that's interesting that it's on two different types of systems and must be very annoying.
It turns out that what I thought was a massive variety of stuff with no trouble is really a lot of machines with Nvidia graphics hardware of similar vintage.
I've never seen those problems on a few hundred machines.
What sort of hardware does your special snowflake machine have? Maybe a driver update has fixed it.
It's kind of a big deal because it's a new step into someone else's war - Saudi Arabia, that country where we had to put a lot of pressure on them before they finally made it illegal to send money and guns to ISIL/Daash. It needs a bit of picking over to see if we are being screwed over by a faction that wants us all dead or not. Not Trumps fault in any way, but a big deal just the same.
I don't think so.
It looks to me like pointless busywork in the form of harassment to demonstrate that the people on the checkpoint are working hard to keep us "safe" so are not overstaffed and should not lose their jobs.
Here is another incident that made someone who loved America (117 trips!) decide it's not worth coming back:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-that-moment-i-loathed-america-i-loathed-the-entire-country?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-Subscribe-010317
I find it interesting that Khrushchev lost his job over this.
sr
Especially since he kept his job until October 1964 and the Cuban missile crisis was over on 28th October 1962.
What is interesting (not really, just annoying I suppose) is "raymorris" claiming that Khrushchev lost his job over this despite the two years that he led the USSR after the Cuban missile crisis.
Two years later is "soon after"? Is this some sort of pathetic debating game to you where the truth does not matter?
Also among those incidents why didn't you mention the U2 pilot who gave his life for his country when he was shot down over Cuba? That's a larger potential trigger than anything you mentioned.
Expertly manipulated him into offering a deal and then offering a WORSE deal the next day? Now that's some manipulation.
Pointless sabre rattling against a country that has already demonstrated that they are prepared to sacrifice millions of their people's lives is something beyond stupid - yet it happened. There is no way to "win" in such a situation.
Because he wasn't. Kennedy took things to the brink and then found he shouldn't have been playing chicken with the USSR.
Kennedy did a lot of great things but there's no point putting forward revisionist history to build him up even more. The Cuba missile crisis was a massive fuckup and from records of the time there was a lot of running around like headless chickens - a President who kept his cool wouldn't have ended up in that mess in the first place.
Since every now and again we read about it being perpetrated by people in those companies who are famous enough to be household names I very much doubt it.
It should be "someone who works hard", and puts a strong focus on science/maths/engineering instead of, as I have unfortunately shown, English.
It's nowhere near unique so not unlikely. To sum up, high school mathematics is generally shit so someone who work hard can get through it in a couple of months and then get through a couple of years of undergraduate mathematics in a year if they have a tight focus. I've seen a few students do that when transitioning from a trade to an engineering degree.
Context - obviously.
Why is pretending to be stupid to push a flawed argument such a thing now? You guys are not brain damaged former DJ's coping with the aftermath of years of cocaine addiction with your rants televised for entertainment. Sorry to pick on you rtb61 when you are just following a trend, but it's pointless, self-demeaning and not even funny.
Since there's plenty of guys who haven't had their life ruined by real accusations until eventually the numbers piled up I think the false stuff has to filed under "too rare to matter" despite it being a staple of TV drama these days.
Phil Spector had a lot of "false accusations", so did Bill Crosby, and it didn't slow down their careers until they crossed that extra line leaving a lot of undeniable evidence just like it hasn't slowed down a lot of others with a much lower profile.
You can see it yourself if you work in a large place and think of all of the current executives who have a reputation due to being accused earlier, false or not, and still have their executive jobs.
Readers you may think you are a weedy little guy but to a small lady who weighs what you could bench press a dozen times you are a threat. To larger ladies that you can outrun you are a threat. I didn't really pick up on that until I came to the city and noticed that many women were physically very weak from almost zero levels of exercise so that even a below average male was a physical threat to them. If you get in the face of a girl who has to rely on you being a nice guy for her safety that can really scare them until they get to know you. On the first shift I worked alone with one petite lady at one job she kept a large garden implement beside her desk for protection because she was scared of me on sight (we'd never spoken before that), and I was the shy skinny guy picked last at sports.
No. It's called taking your work seriously instead of treating it like a playpen.