You can buy reserved instances for 3 year periods, this locks-in the price and guarantees availability. And 5-year projections actually don't make much sense - hardware is likely to go through a couple of generations during this time. I worked for many companies and all the long-range cost projections I've seen were nothing but a pipe dream (or actually a checkbox document written by engineers eager to do actual work instead of generating tons of useless paperwork).
Just use AWS and scale out as needed. Your capacity planning then becomes more of a question which reserved instances to buy. AWS is not suitable for 100% of applications, but if you ask how to do capacity planning then your use-case is unlikely to be that 1% that doesn't fit the AWS model.
Oh, a typical "there's nothing I approve, so everything's OK". In this case Republicans explicitly passed a law that goes against the Republican ideology of free market and small government, this law guarantees that the banks WILL BE BAILED OUT by FDIC in case of a failed gamble. But for you it's OK, since it's an "amendment" to an act that you don't like.
That's just one example. Republicans are not a political party - they don't have an economic strategy or anything remotely practical. They are by now a tool of wealthy corporations.
And now about "both parties do this" (which is the last defense of a scoundrel). There's a really important point here - there are Democrats in the Congress who are not beholden to Big Money. But there are NO Republicans in the Congress that even remotely care about people.
Ok, so what important things Republicans stand for these days?
And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Tesla is not reducing production. They are in process of revamping their whole freaking production line (now with MOAR robots!) for the Model X launch.
So let's see. What is the Republican plan for universal healthcare?
...crickets...
Hm. How about environment regulation?
...crickets dying from mercury in coal ash...
Education and student debts? Aging infrastructure?
...crickets...
That desperately needed tunnel under the Hudson River?
...crickets are stuck in a traffic jam on the bridge...
Middle east?
...crickets bombing Iran...
Yes, the Republican party is not constructive. It simply can't offer ANYTHING but the same old: "Cut taxes and reduce regulation (especially on Wall Street)".
Come to think about it... I actually remember one constructive law that was passed by this Congress! It was to allow big banks to use FDIC-insured funds for speculation. It was _literally_ written by Chase lobbyists and had universal Republican approval.
Not just "none", but they actually invoked the cloture. So Democrats had to muster 60 votes instead of just 50, and that required compromising with DINOs. Had Republicans simply acceded to the vote of majority, we would have had a nice single-payer system.
And actually, I don't even remember a single Republican-led constructive initiative recently.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
Duh. In ALL cases it was caused by Republicans screwing the pooch and Democrats trying to pick up the pieces. So your words in reverse: "In every case Republicans got control of the budget, they screwed it over"
I am lower middle class supporting 2 kids on my income (my wife died a few years ago.)
It looks like you're NOT middle class, but rather a worker. In other words, a member of proletariat and instead of making sure that your income goes up, you prefer to stop others from moving up. Should I quote Lenin about this?
This tells me all I need to know. In other words, this won't negatively impact or your liberal friends so no reason not to do it.
Not really true - we do pay the taxes and they disproportionally affect higher incomes. And I'm totally fine with it.
Not changing the goalpost. I was just surprised that you considered moving the poor artificially into the middle class pay rage and thus bring the middle class down to the poor pay range income equality.
Dude, the US succeeded in destroying the middle class. The $15 wage is NOWHERE close to middle class.
How is it factually wrong that this is at the expense of the middle class?
Because you're defining 'middle class' as 'those who can sneer at those poor beggars on the street'. In the actual world out there, middle class are business owners and professionals. And they _benefit_ from higher minimal wage.
You see, a worker with some disposable income can actually (gasp!) visit a restaurant with their family. I know, it's insulting for many conservatives to eat in the same establishment with poor proles, but small business owners actually get more customers.
It doesn't scale infinitely - if you raise the minimum wage way up then eventually the labor price will dominate everything else, erasing any further gains and leading to inflation. Economic research points out that the equilibrium point is somewhere near $30 per hour.
I imagine you work in a job that has skills that cannot be taught in a week or two and are in a better position to push for a raise to adjust for the increase in cost of living. Most of us do not have that and none of the people making minimum wage have that.
Yes, I'm a highly paid professional (in the top US income tax bracket) and I wish that everyone could earn a decent livable wage.
So changing goalposts, are we? Now minimum wage increases income equality but at the expense of the middle class (again, factually wrong). Next it will grow the middle class, but probably at the expense of good vibes or something.
The unemployment rate is going back up and has been for the past 3 months. It dropped at the same time it was dropping for the rest of the country,
It's seasonal, and will go down during the next months. JFYI.
I have always been curious if educated people really see raising minimum wage as anything more than suckering poor people into feeling like that have more cash. When minimum wage increases, it just creates even more income inequality
BZZT! Factually wrong. Greater minimum wage creates more income equality, and this can be demonstrated easily: http://economics.mit.edu/files...
And this study smells like raw sewage. Check other links from this site, like bullshitty ( http://www.westernjournalism.c... ). However, the target audience of this site appears to drink this sewage with enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, Seattle's unemployment rate currently stands at 3% and is poised to drop to 2% by the end of the year. My favorite restaurant (it's in the next building from my apartment) has extended its hours to 2am.
Frankly, no. The next-gen supercharger will be able to provide current at 200kW, and that's about 600 miles per hour. So short commutes (~100 miles) will be easily covered by 10 minute supercharge and for longer commutes the limiting factor is the battery capacity.
Of course, if we get 3000-miles lithium-air batteries then all will change.
Tesla owners usually charge overnight to 80% of the battery capacity - that's about 220 miles. So you need to exhaust more than 180 miles of your range (that's 3 hours of highway-speed driving!). Then you suddenly need to remember that you have to go to an airport another 150 or so miles away (2-3 hours of driving, again) and you don't even have 30 minutes for a charge.
That's a pretty exotic set of circumstances.
And don't forget that new 160kW superchargers can recharge an almost empty battery at 400 miles per hour, so you get about 65 miles of range in just 10 minutes. Supercharger availability may be a problem, but it's much easier to build new charging stations than battery swap stations.
There's already a rail connection between China and Europe. It's hardly used, the amount of traffic through this route is pretty much negligible. Most of the Chinese manufacturing is close to the Pacific Ocean, so it's much more efficient to actually _ship_ goods to Europe. The shipping time matters, but not that much.
I said there aren't enough SWAT teams around to all handle the gangs
So right now all SWAT teams are at 24/7 utilization, barely having time to sleep and eat?
BS.
A typical SWAT team is deployed less than once a week. That's a reason why we have increased cases of excessive force used - the idle SWAT teams just make it too easy to over-react.
By the time SWAT got there, they'd have scattered like cockroaches.
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy reserved instances for 3 year periods, this locks-in the price and guarantees availability. And 5-year projections actually don't make much sense - hardware is likely to go through a couple of generations during this time. I worked for many companies and all the long-range cost projections I've seen were nothing but a pipe dream (or actually a checkbox document written by engineers eager to do actual work instead of generating tons of useless paperwork).
Just use AWS and scale out as needed. Your capacity planning then becomes more of a question which reserved instances to buy. AWS is not suitable for 100% of applications, but if you ask how to do capacity planning then your use-case is unlikely to be that 1% that doesn't fit the AWS model.
Oh, a typical "there's nothing I approve, so everything's OK". In this case Republicans explicitly passed a law that goes against the Republican ideology of free market and small government, this law guarantees that the banks WILL BE BAILED OUT by FDIC in case of a failed gamble. But for you it's OK, since it's an "amendment" to an act that you don't like.
That's just one example. Republicans are not a political party - they don't have an economic strategy or anything remotely practical. They are by now a tool of wealthy corporations.
And now about "both parties do this" (which is the last defense of a scoundrel). There's a really important point here - there are Democrats in the Congress who are not beholden to Big Money. But there are NO Republicans in the Congress that even remotely care about people.
Ok, so what important things Republicans stand for these days?
And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Tesla is not reducing production. They are in process of revamping their whole freaking production line (now with MOAR robots!) for the Model X launch.
So let's see. What is the Republican plan for universal healthcare?
...crickets...
...crickets dying from mercury in coal ash...
...crickets...
...crickets are stuck in a traffic jam on the bridge...
...crickets bombing Iran...
Hm. How about environment regulation?
Education and student debts? Aging infrastructure?
That desperately needed tunnel under the Hudson River?
Middle east?
Yes, the Republican party is not constructive. It simply can't offer ANYTHING but the same old: "Cut taxes and reduce regulation (especially on Wall Street)".
Come to think about it... I actually remember one constructive law that was passed by this Congress! It was to allow big banks to use FDIC-insured funds for speculation. It was _literally_ written by Chase lobbyists and had universal Republican approval.
Not just "none", but they actually invoked the cloture. So Democrats had to muster 60 votes instead of just 50, and that required compromising with DINOs. Had Republicans simply acceded to the vote of majority, we would have had a nice single-payer system.
And actually, I don't even remember a single Republican-led constructive initiative recently.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
Duh. In ALL cases it was caused by Republicans screwing the pooch and Democrats trying to pick up the pieces. So your words in reverse: "In every case Republicans got control of the budget, they screwed it over"
So how many Republicans were for single-payer?
Care to point to relevant federal laws passed during Obama administration and relaxing the disability claim requirements? Ah, thought so.
I am lower middle class supporting 2 kids on my income (my wife died a few years ago.)
It looks like you're NOT middle class, but rather a worker. In other words, a member of proletariat and instead of making sure that your income goes up, you prefer to stop others from moving up. Should I quote Lenin about this?
This tells me all I need to know. In other words, this won't negatively impact or your liberal friends so no reason not to do it.
Not really true - we do pay the taxes and they disproportionally affect higher incomes. And I'm totally fine with it.
Not changing the goalpost. I was just surprised that you considered moving the poor artificially into the middle class pay rage and thus bring the middle class down to the poor pay range income equality.
Dude, the US succeeded in destroying the middle class. The $15 wage is NOWHERE close to middle class.
How is it factually wrong that this is at the expense of the middle class?
Because you're defining 'middle class' as 'those who can sneer at those poor beggars on the street'. In the actual world out there, middle class are business owners and professionals. And they _benefit_ from higher minimal wage.
You see, a worker with some disposable income can actually (gasp!) visit a restaurant with their family. I know, it's insulting for many conservatives to eat in the same establishment with poor proles, but small business owners actually get more customers.
It doesn't scale infinitely - if you raise the minimum wage way up then eventually the labor price will dominate everything else, erasing any further gains and leading to inflation. Economic research points out that the equilibrium point is somewhere near $30 per hour.
I imagine you work in a job that has skills that cannot be taught in a week or two and are in a better position to push for a raise to adjust for the increase in cost of living. Most of us do not have that and none of the people making minimum wage have that.
Yes, I'm a highly paid professional (in the top US income tax bracket) and I wish that everyone could earn a decent livable wage.
So changing goalposts, are we? Now minimum wage increases income equality but at the expense of the middle class (again, factually wrong). Next it will grow the middle class, but probably at the expense of good vibes or something.
The unemployment rate is going back up and has been for the past 3 months. It dropped at the same time it was dropping for the rest of the country,
It's seasonal, and will go down during the next months. JFYI.
I have always been curious if educated people really see raising minimum wage as anything more than suckering poor people into feeling like that have more cash. When minimum wage increases, it just creates even more income inequality
BZZT! Factually wrong. Greater minimum wage creates more income equality, and this can be demonstrated easily: http://economics.mit.edu/files...
And this study smells like raw sewage. Check other links from this site, like bullshitty ( http://www.westernjournalism.c... ). However, the target audience of this site appears to drink this sewage with enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, Seattle's unemployment rate currently stands at 3% and is poised to drop to 2% by the end of the year. My favorite restaurant (it's in the next building from my apartment) has extended its hours to 2am.
Ah, Yale know-nothings. A typical Tea Partier understands science. And then rejects it.
You can see how batteries can be disconnected, people even disassembled a battery pack: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com...
As for "definite information" - Tesla asked people participating in the pilot program to sign NDAs.
They charge you the battery price difference if you don't return the battery, and it's not worth it right now.
Frankly, no. The next-gen supercharger will be able to provide current at 200kW, and that's about 600 miles per hour. So short commutes (~100 miles) will be easily covered by 10 minute supercharge and for longer commutes the limiting factor is the battery capacity.
Of course, if we get 3000-miles lithium-air batteries then all will change.
Tesla owners usually charge overnight to 80% of the battery capacity - that's about 220 miles. So you need to exhaust more than 180 miles of your range (that's 3 hours of highway-speed driving!). Then you suddenly need to remember that you have to go to an airport another 150 or so miles away (2-3 hours of driving, again) and you don't even have 30 minutes for a charge.
That's a pretty exotic set of circumstances.
And don't forget that new 160kW superchargers can recharge an almost empty battery at 400 miles per hour, so you get about 65 miles of range in just 10 minutes. Supercharger availability may be a problem, but it's much easier to build new charging stations than battery swap stations.
Yes, I think I got a newer battery. However, right now you have to return to the battery swap station to get your battery back.
Anyway, battery replacement can be done easily for Tesla in regular non-automated service centers in a manner of minutes.
I have a Tesla Model S. And I've participated in the battery-swap beta.
It works, almost as on the video - except you have to carefully position your car and attendant manually blocks your car's wheels from rolling.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, though. The price ($85) is not worth it, it's just easier to wait 30 minutes for a supercharge.
There's already a rail connection between China and Europe. It's hardly used, the amount of traffic through this route is pretty much negligible. Most of the Chinese manufacturing is close to the Pacific Ocean, so it's much more efficient to actually _ship_ goods to Europe. The shipping time matters, but not that much.
Of course something can be done. But it's politically incorrect to do so. The most violent gangs are thick with illegal aliens from Central America.
That's actually not true. The most violent gangs (how do you measure that, btw?) are made from local citizens. Chiefly out of 'ghetto' neighborhoods.
I said there aren't enough SWAT teams around to all handle the gangs
So right now all SWAT teams are at 24/7 utilization, barely having time to sleep and eat?
BS.
A typical SWAT team is deployed less than once a week. That's a reason why we have increased cases of excessive force used - the idle SWAT teams just make it too easy to over-react.
By the time SWAT got there, they'd have scattered like cockroaches.
Another BS.