Is it cheaper to pay $12/hr for a driver to make a 3-day cross-country drive, or to pay $12/hr for a driver at the destination to get into each truck and park it as it arrives?
Replace "illegal aliens" with "blacks", "Muslims", or your scapegoat of choice. Ethnicity and correlation with reality may be region-dependent; correlations with reality may be due to regional demographics rather than actual racial behaviors. Americans take no responsibility for predictive value of scapegoating in either the event-implies-profile or profile-implies-event direction; ethnic profiling provided for entertainment only.
A lorry has a giant plastic scoop on top that serves no purpose other than to provide fairing for the big, box-shaped shipping container. Seriously, it's a third of the cabin's height.
A lorry is a large vehicle which attaches a 40-foot shipping container to produce an 18-wheeled vehicle-plus-trailer with over 12,000kg of gross vehicle weight. They typically drop off a trailer at a loading dock and take a new, empty or pre-loaded one (generally a pre-loaded one if the place has incoming and outgoing shipping; empty at termination points, loaded at distribution centers).
A driverless lorry could park a trailer accurately, correctly, and safely at a loading dock. The sensors would tell it exactly how it aligns and moves, versus a human who uses some visual information and some prior information (intuition) to estimate without a real data stream.
It has to have the capacity for a driverless upgrade out of the gate or it's going to be an expensive, outdated piece of awkward shit. That's where we are now: an electric lorry would be awesome, but we're seriously waiting for a driverless lorry in 2020. Promise an upgrade to driverless at significantly less than the full cost of the vehicle and close to the cost difference between it and a driverless model of equal specification when the tech becomes available and you're good to go; require replacing a probably 5,000,000 mile vehicle 500,000 miles into its lifespan to get the driverless tech (bigger than electric tech) and you're getting nothing.
The problem isn't that you're no longer mitigating risk; it's that the requirement to mitigate risk were ~$1,000 before, and now are ~$250,000.
Likewise, risk mitigation in the situation I describe is practically-impossible. When I stated that the prior RAID arrays kept running but the new devices simply shut down, hard, immediately, that had implications: you don't get to say, "Oh, okay, it's failed; time to duplicate that to the second, back-up system I got." Nope. At trouble time, your data is locked away; you have what you duplicated prior to failure. Current RAID operates during failure and allows you to replicate.
A live system running on a replicating SAN speced as such would have to crash all systems using said SAN immediately. They couldn't continue running, because the SAN would fail to replicate something that was written, and everything would expect it to have been, and then damage and data loss would occur. You need a reboot and storage array check to recover.
For farmers, the cost of risk here is higher than practical. The result is anyone who simply accepts the risk rides on that kind of danger; anyone who mitigates has to raise prices outside what their competitors are currently charging, and the market won't bear them--they fail immediately, instead of when an uncontrollable risk kicks in. They're easily-replaceable, so they'd just come and go, and the system would (worst-case) fail to supply stable food production.
Best-case, the price of food goes up by a large (5%-15%) margin to cover equipment bought but not used. Consumers pay the difference.
Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition.
That's the heart of much of the argument and many of the comments here: what John Deere is doing isn't something you reasonably respond to by taking extra steps to manage risk. Those "extra steps" aren't viable in the market, and they aren't necessary. Fortunately, John Deere doesn't make all viable farm equipment of any class or purpose, and farmers are quite capable of going and getting the same shit from someone else.
The other argument is that the next competitor--and the next, and the next--are perfectly-capable of implementing the same shit as John Deere at some point in the future. When your remaining competition is too small to provide reliable service and supply--not enough current business to guarantee parts and equipment availability during scale-up to meet new demand for the reasonable foreseeable future--they're no longer an option. Likewise, when that entire sector is small and you have two or three big players eating under 40% of the market each, those big players can buy the little players and claim someone else just as big as them is in the market as competition, and thus that buying up the little players to lock up the market isn't unfair competition, avoiding FTA anti-trust action.
There are failure conditions here in the open market model that require boundary-setting. There are failure conditions in boundary-setting, too, which scares the shit out of people.
Interesting. I haven't read up on Canadian healthcare since 2006, so it's possible I received an incorrect secondary interpretation. I doubt the system's changed that dramatically.
yeah I was wondering: if Verizon and Comcast can build it, can the government then lease it after getting right to expand? Hell, since they paid for it,
can they lease it for free?
Once you're in prison, I would imagine the bar to increase sentencing is rather high. To increase your sentence, you'd have to go through trial, which means the prison has to file with the DA about crimes you committed in prison. There's a limited amount of discretion on early release, on which the prison wardens can provide input; anything beyond this requires judicial oversight.
Think about it. If you commit a rape or murder in prison, this needs to go to judiciary review. You need due process to examine the evidence. You're in an environment where other inmates can easily create a false image of the situation, and even the administrative staff is under enough obvious stress that trust is limited and personal grudges and abuse are expected. On the other end, every minor infraction doesn't need to become a Federal case; if you steal a fork from the commissary, that warrants disciplinary action, but not necessarily a new extension on your sentence.
This is hijinks. It's extreme hijinks, but it's still just hijinks. The inmate targeted for identity theft has a case against these people; as for their illegal use of the prison network and the entire chain of events involved, that's more of an administrative manner. This is an environment where people steal stuff, break stuff, and get places they don't belong; even beyond that expectation, this was junk hardware with little to no value to anyone, and thus the damages done by its theft are below standing. Such a scale of high-mischief warrants an extremely-long and uncomfortable talking to, and some unfriendly disciplinary measures; it's more amusing than criminal, though, and doesn't warrant an extreme response.
tl;dr: Nobody got stabbed or raped, and there wasn't a riot or break-out; somebody will get yelled at a whole hell of a lot and have their free-time privileges suspended, and that's just fine.
We've done nothing at the expense of healthcare, education, and social programs. The military budget is relatively-small, considering what America is (that being 5.8 times the UK): a bit over $550 billion for military, versus $800 billion for Social Security old-age pensions.
Healthcare is expensive at this scale. Canada's system is hybrid, with employers required to provide healthcare, and anyone not covered by that given single-payer coverage, meaning 73% of Canadian healthcare is private; the United States could have produced a similar policy at similar or lower cost compared to the ACA, only covering around 1/4 of the population, to great effect. It's doable, and it's at the very least not significantly more-costly than the ACA--and potentially quite a bit less-costly and more-effective.
As for education, our education system suffers a political problem: altering education means accepting the consequences, personally. Attempting to change the way we teach at a Federal level gets you attacked for overreach, because states are in charge of education; and any changes to education at any level will produce a non-perfect system, meaning a loud collection of people whose kids aren't getting perfect grades will rain hell on your office for destroying our education system. Never mind that a 65% high-school graduation rate becomes an 85% graduation rate with students functionally better-educated; the 15% that fail out--even if they fail out because their parents are busy arguing with the school for bothering them about their kids's terrible and disruptive behavior--will settle the blame squarely on your new system. It's safest to do nothing.
On top of that, this is America, and we don't learn from others. Nobody goes around the world to develop a healthcare or education plan; they talk about what they've come up with themselves, from their brilliance, and how it's going to change America. That's why Common Core primary math doesn't look like Japanese primary math, and isn't nearly as effective. That's why we have the ACA and not a system similar to Canada's.
That conversion can't technically be done. Even when executives get stocks and options, they pay income taxes on the market value of the stock when they receive it. When they hold that stock for over 1 year, the difference between its original valuation and its new valuation is taxed as capital gains. Dividends are taxed as income, always.
Hard real-time requirements, with slow firing. A slow fuse that burns in 15 seconds protects a million dollars's worth of equipment; a slow fuse that burns in 16 seconds causes a million-dollar fire. At that crossing, the fuse's failure to react incurs a cost of $62,500 per second; after that crossing, the per-second cost of failure is essentially zero; before that failure, it's also essentially zero.
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.
Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary
Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms. Suddenly your clients must buy 3x as much shit from you to manage the same risks. That means instead of a $350 RAID controller with $1,500 of disks in your $8,000 server, you have to buy an $80,000 SAN and add a $35,000 secondary controller--in case the controller goes.
Note that I described a different problem, though: the new RAID controllers don't work like the old ones. It's not that your RAID controller failed; it's that your old RAID controller detected a disk failing and used RAID parity to keep running, and your new one detects a disk failure and immediately shuts down the array--no replication, no access, nothing. RAID-10 mirroring and one drive in one side of the mirror failed? Your server immediately crashes. The data on these drives is locked out as inaccessible "so there's no data loss" until Dell can bring you a fresh drive "within the next few weeks" and input the magic code.
So your existing RAID arrays run fine; when they're no longer adequate (burned out, don't handle new technology, etc.), you have to buy one of these new RAID controllers. These new RAID controllers take down your storage array as soon as a disk fails, and they don't bring it back up until Dell sends a representative to deal with it in a few weeks.
I see a lot of things in that wall, from shapes in the brick (a smile) to what looks like a lizard head sticking out. I don't see anything non-obvious, or anything obviously unusual; further, I see nothing that would break in a 2D/3D transition.
Recently, they tore down the sleep application for anyone who doesn't have a new Charge 2 or Blaze. With one of only three types of new trackers, you get Sleep Stages; with everything else, they've removed interactive graphs, sleep latency, sleep efficiency, total time in bed, and so forth. You also can't switch to the Sensitive tracker after a bad night, which is more-accurate for detecting wake events (meaning you want it Sensitive if you wake up a lot so it doesn't detect wake as sleep, and Normal if you sleep well so it doesn't detect sleep as wake). They put back a few statistics after everyone got pissed.
They've been hostile to users about this change, albeit with a velvet tongue. Lots of lip service, blaming the user, and telling the user the features that vanished are either things they said they wanted to go away or things they don't need. Anyone who points out support is unhelpful is removed for being "inflammatory"--this frequently includes people who point out that support seems to have no idea what's happening, and misses people who claim Fitbit just hires retards and high-school drop-outs for support; Fitbit is basically removing any posts criticizing their staff, and plenty of posts criticizing their business, although with the massive flood it's been arbitrary due to the PR nightmare that is just deleting every dissenting voice. They're at least not complete morons.
Risk isn't about guarantees; it's about control. Can you guarantee you won't die riding a motorcycle at normal speeds while wearing a helmet and body armor? No? Then why not just take side streets at 100+mph in a t-shirt and shorts, barefoot?
Balance on the card is a separate issue. Cardholder rewards generally come from merchant fees; the interest on the card is interest on a loan from your bank.
Without cardholder rewards, merchant fees would be relatively-flat due to competition being entirely based on merchant fees. More merchants accept Visa than Mastercard nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it cheaper to pay $12/hr for a driver to make a 3-day cross-country drive, or to pay $12/hr for a driver at the destination to get into each truck and park it as it arrives?
Replace "illegal aliens" with "blacks", "Muslims", or your scapegoat of choice. Ethnicity and correlation with reality may be region-dependent; correlations with reality may be due to regional demographics rather than actual racial behaviors. Americans take no responsibility for predictive value of scapegoating in either the event-implies-profile or profile-implies-event direction; ethnic profiling provided for entertainment only.
What if they need a different set of hardware bolted on to meet future DOT guidelines for unoccupied autonomous vehicles?
"Lorry" is British for a specific kind of vehicle. "Truck" is American English for a bunch of unrelated things.
Model 3: $35,000. Bolt EV: $37,000. Volt PHEV: $33,000.
Seems like Tesla is in the same MSRP class as Chevrolet.
A lorry has a giant plastic scoop on top that serves no purpose other than to provide fairing for the big, box-shaped shipping container. Seriously, it's a third of the cabin's height.
A lorry is a large vehicle which attaches a 40-foot shipping container to produce an 18-wheeled vehicle-plus-trailer with over 12,000kg of gross vehicle weight. They typically drop off a trailer at a loading dock and take a new, empty or pre-loaded one (generally a pre-loaded one if the place has incoming and outgoing shipping; empty at termination points, loaded at distribution centers).
A driverless lorry could park a trailer accurately, correctly, and safely at a loading dock. The sensors would tell it exactly how it aligns and moves, versus a human who uses some visual information and some prior information (intuition) to estimate without a real data stream.
It has to have the capacity for a driverless upgrade out of the gate or it's going to be an expensive, outdated piece of awkward shit. That's where we are now: an electric lorry would be awesome, but we're seriously waiting for a driverless lorry in 2020. Promise an upgrade to driverless at significantly less than the full cost of the vehicle and close to the cost difference between it and a driverless model of equal specification when the tech becomes available and you're good to go; require replacing a probably 5,000,000 mile vehicle 500,000 miles into its lifespan to get the driverless tech (bigger than electric tech) and you're getting nothing.
It's weird to see a cult cutting membership, isn't it?
That's pretty much the first paragraph I wrote.
The problem isn't that you're no longer mitigating risk; it's that the requirement to mitigate risk were ~$1,000 before, and now are ~$250,000.
Likewise, risk mitigation in the situation I describe is practically-impossible. When I stated that the prior RAID arrays kept running but the new devices simply shut down, hard, immediately, that had implications: you don't get to say, "Oh, okay, it's failed; time to duplicate that to the second, back-up system I got." Nope. At trouble time, your data is locked away; you have what you duplicated prior to failure. Current RAID operates during failure and allows you to replicate.
A live system running on a replicating SAN speced as such would have to crash all systems using said SAN immediately. They couldn't continue running, because the SAN would fail to replicate something that was written, and everything would expect it to have been, and then damage and data loss would occur. You need a reboot and storage array check to recover.
For farmers, the cost of risk here is higher than practical. The result is anyone who simply accepts the risk rides on that kind of danger; anyone who mitigates has to raise prices outside what their competitors are currently charging, and the market won't bear them--they fail immediately, instead of when an uncontrollable risk kicks in. They're easily-replaceable, so they'd just come and go, and the system would (worst-case) fail to supply stable food production.
Best-case, the price of food goes up by a large (5%-15%) margin to cover equipment bought but not used. Consumers pay the difference.
Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition.
That's the heart of much of the argument and many of the comments here: what John Deere is doing isn't something you reasonably respond to by taking extra steps to manage risk. Those "extra steps" aren't viable in the market, and they aren't necessary. Fortunately, John Deere doesn't make all viable farm equipment of any class or purpose, and farmers are quite capable of going and getting the same shit from someone else.
The other argument is that the next competitor--and the next, and the next--are perfectly-capable of implementing the same shit as John Deere at some point in the future. When your remaining competition is too small to provide reliable service and supply--not enough current business to guarantee parts and equipment availability during scale-up to meet new demand for the reasonable foreseeable future--they're no longer an option. Likewise, when that entire sector is small and you have two or three big players eating under 40% of the market each, those big players can buy the little players and claim someone else just as big as them is in the market as competition, and thus that buying up the little players to lock up the market isn't unfair competition, avoiding FTA anti-trust action.
There are failure conditions here in the open market model that require boundary-setting. There are failure conditions in boundary-setting, too, which scares the shit out of people.
Interesting. I haven't read up on Canadian healthcare since 2006, so it's possible I received an incorrect secondary interpretation. I doubt the system's changed that dramatically.
yeah I was wondering: if Verizon and Comcast can build it, can the government then lease it after getting right to expand? Hell, since they paid for it, can they lease it for free?
Once you're in prison, I would imagine the bar to increase sentencing is rather high. To increase your sentence, you'd have to go through trial, which means the prison has to file with the DA about crimes you committed in prison. There's a limited amount of discretion on early release, on which the prison wardens can provide input; anything beyond this requires judicial oversight.
Think about it. If you commit a rape or murder in prison, this needs to go to judiciary review. You need due process to examine the evidence. You're in an environment where other inmates can easily create a false image of the situation, and even the administrative staff is under enough obvious stress that trust is limited and personal grudges and abuse are expected. On the other end, every minor infraction doesn't need to become a Federal case; if you steal a fork from the commissary, that warrants disciplinary action, but not necessarily a new extension on your sentence.
This is hijinks. It's extreme hijinks, but it's still just hijinks. The inmate targeted for identity theft has a case against these people; as for their illegal use of the prison network and the entire chain of events involved, that's more of an administrative manner. This is an environment where people steal stuff, break stuff, and get places they don't belong; even beyond that expectation, this was junk hardware with little to no value to anyone, and thus the damages done by its theft are below standing. Such a scale of high-mischief warrants an extremely-long and uncomfortable talking to, and some unfriendly disciplinary measures; it's more amusing than criminal, though, and doesn't warrant an extreme response.
tl;dr: Nobody got stabbed or raped, and there wasn't a riot or break-out; somebody will get yelled at a whole hell of a lot and have their free-time privileges suspended, and that's just fine.
We've done nothing at the expense of healthcare, education, and social programs. The military budget is relatively-small, considering what America is (that being 5.8 times the UK): a bit over $550 billion for military, versus $800 billion for Social Security old-age pensions.
Healthcare is expensive at this scale. Canada's system is hybrid, with employers required to provide healthcare, and anyone not covered by that given single-payer coverage, meaning 73% of Canadian healthcare is private; the United States could have produced a similar policy at similar or lower cost compared to the ACA, only covering around 1/4 of the population, to great effect. It's doable, and it's at the very least not significantly more-costly than the ACA--and potentially quite a bit less-costly and more-effective.
As for education, our education system suffers a political problem: altering education means accepting the consequences, personally. Attempting to change the way we teach at a Federal level gets you attacked for overreach, because states are in charge of education; and any changes to education at any level will produce a non-perfect system, meaning a loud collection of people whose kids aren't getting perfect grades will rain hell on your office for destroying our education system. Never mind that a 65% high-school graduation rate becomes an 85% graduation rate with students functionally better-educated; the 15% that fail out--even if they fail out because their parents are busy arguing with the school for bothering them about their kids's terrible and disruptive behavior--will settle the blame squarely on your new system. It's safest to do nothing.
On top of that, this is America, and we don't learn from others. Nobody goes around the world to develop a healthcare or education plan; they talk about what they've come up with themselves, from their brilliance, and how it's going to change America. That's why Common Core primary math doesn't look like Japanese primary math, and isn't nearly as effective. That's why we have the ACA and not a system similar to Canada's.
Never mind what we could do with the welfare money.
We've traded healthcare, education, and social programs for politics and incompetence.
It might help if we actually saw more benefit from our taxes.
Done.
That conversion can't technically be done. Even when executives get stocks and options, they pay income taxes on the market value of the stock when they receive it. When they hold that stock for over 1 year, the difference between its original valuation and its new valuation is taxed as capital gains. Dividends are taxed as income, always.
Dividends get taxed as income. So do stocks. Capital gains on stocks held for more than 1 year get taxed as capital gains.
Hard real-time requirements, with slow firing. A slow fuse that burns in 15 seconds protects a million dollars's worth of equipment; a slow fuse that burns in 16 seconds causes a million-dollar fire. At that crossing, the fuse's failure to react incurs a cost of $62,500 per second; after that crossing, the per-second cost of failure is essentially zero; before that failure, it's also essentially zero.
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.
Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary
Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms. Suddenly your clients must buy 3x as much shit from you to manage the same risks. That means instead of a $350 RAID controller with $1,500 of disks in your $8,000 server, you have to buy an $80,000 SAN and add a $35,000 secondary controller--in case the controller goes.
Note that I described a different problem, though: the new RAID controllers don't work like the old ones. It's not that your RAID controller failed; it's that your old RAID controller detected a disk failing and used RAID parity to keep running, and your new one detects a disk failure and immediately shuts down the array--no replication, no access, nothing. RAID-10 mirroring and one drive in one side of the mirror failed? Your server immediately crashes. The data on these drives is locked out as inaccessible "so there's no data loss" until Dell can bring you a fresh drive "within the next few weeks" and input the magic code.
So your existing RAID arrays run fine; when they're no longer adequate (burned out, don't handle new technology, etc.), you have to buy one of these new RAID controllers. These new RAID controllers take down your storage array as soon as a disk fails, and they don't bring it back up until Dell sends a representative to deal with it in a few weeks.
Would you continue to shop with Dell after this?
Do you understand how doctors make their decisions?
Neither do medical professionals.
I see a lot of things in that wall, from shapes in the brick (a smile) to what looks like a lizard head sticking out. I don't see anything non-obvious, or anything obviously unusual; further, I see nothing that would break in a 2D/3D transition.
Recently, they tore down the sleep application for anyone who doesn't have a new Charge 2 or Blaze. With one of only three types of new trackers, you get Sleep Stages; with everything else, they've removed interactive graphs, sleep latency, sleep efficiency, total time in bed, and so forth. You also can't switch to the Sensitive tracker after a bad night, which is more-accurate for detecting wake events (meaning you want it Sensitive if you wake up a lot so it doesn't detect wake as sleep, and Normal if you sleep well so it doesn't detect sleep as wake). They put back a few statistics after everyone got pissed.
They've been hostile to users about this change, albeit with a velvet tongue. Lots of lip service, blaming the user, and telling the user the features that vanished are either things they said they wanted to go away or things they don't need. Anyone who points out support is unhelpful is removed for being "inflammatory"--this frequently includes people who point out that support seems to have no idea what's happening, and misses people who claim Fitbit just hires retards and high-school drop-outs for support; Fitbit is basically removing any posts criticizing their staff, and plenty of posts criticizing their business, although with the massive flood it's been arbitrary due to the PR nightmare that is just deleting every dissenting voice. They're at least not complete morons.
Risk isn't about guarantees; it's about control. Can you guarantee you won't die riding a motorcycle at normal speeds while wearing a helmet and body armor? No? Then why not just take side streets at 100+mph in a t-shirt and shorts, barefoot?
Memory requires encoding. To remember an event, you need it to go through the prefrontal cortex for interpretation, encoding, and event storage.
Balance on the card is a separate issue. Cardholder rewards generally come from merchant fees; the interest on the card is interest on a loan from your bank.
Without cardholder rewards, merchant fees would be relatively-flat due to competition being entirely based on merchant fees. More merchants accept Visa than Mastercard nowadays.