"Net result, elimination of all car production lines as auto companies abandon them for more profitable SUV/light truck production resulting in off shoring of car production and loss of American manufacturing jobs"
Only commenting on this piece as it is particularly wrong. While some auto companies may offshore some SUV production, the most profitable light truck production ABSOLUTELY does NOT go offshore. I know this because of a long existing tariff I personally hate called the "Chicken Tax". You can google it if you want all the details, but the bottom line is that many years ago because of a trade dispute (on chickens and a few other things) the US implemented a 25% tax on all imported light trucks, which more less makes it unprofitable to do so. That means that ALL truck production, regardless of brand happens solely in the US. Some parts might be imported, but that is about it. This is also why you get the trend of trucks all being huge behemoths, and more and more trucks being built (profit margins high, no competition, and the bread and butter of the auto industry of the US). The end result being if companies want to sell trucks in the US they have to build a plant and build them there.
So no, it will not be lost light truck production jobs overseas... (as mentions SUV's are different). As for why I dislike the chicken tax, it is only because the truck market is so monotonous in the US because of it. There are tons of cool, interesting trucks, particularly of the smaller and inexpensive variety that never reach the shores of north america because it isn't worth anyone's time to try and market them here due to the 25% tariff making them essentially unprofitable.
There are pros and cons to unions. However I will comment on your power base comment which is totally a thing.
Call it power base, call it membership, call it self-perpetuation. That's ta unions #1 goal, everything else is secondary. It really comes down to motivation.
In the same way that a real estate agent really has little vested interest in getting you a better deal, their interest is their time so the faster they can sell it the better, but since they get a percentage, the more it costs, the more they get paid. So their incentive is to sell expensive houses as fast as possible. Period.
For a union that is membership, and more specifically membership dues. The more members, the more dues, the more dues the more money they get. I had one very illuminating experience where I felt that I went through an interview process that was very clearly unfair, the outcome ridiculous, and the process obviously flawed and gamed. I had though if ever there was a reason to go to my union this is it (first, last). The problem was is there are a couple unions involved for employees. At the time my current was union A, while the position I had applied for was in union B. When I went to go talk to my union rep, they basically said this: Listen, your situation may be grossly unfair, however we're not going to help you. If we did and you got that position, we would lose you as a member, as you would then be a member of Union B. However you can't get any help from Union B, because technically you are not a member. Suck it up and move on.
Which I did, and if I'm honest I didn't really want the job, and was more of proving a point about how rigged the competition was. In the end it was good that I didn't get it anyway. However it did fundamentally teach me about the motivations of unions. It has nothing to do with the altruistic betterment of employees, but rather the self-preservation and growth of their membership, which many times have similar goals, but not always. The problem is that the employer is able to take advantage of where those goals don't exactly align to do whatever they want basically, which really isn't in the employees favor (particularly because you belong to a union you give up certain rights as well).
Well the devils in the details and how the stats are run, but just looking that those two values:
"7% of billionaires inherited all of their money." That either means that they have more less the same amount of money they inherited, or LOST money so that all of it left is inherited.
"8% inherited nothing" I think this is the minority I was talking about where 92% of billionaires have inherited at least a portion of their money.
However that leaves a large amount (85%) where that number is somewhere in between. I'd suggest (unfounded guess) that almost all of that would be billionaires that inherited their money and have modestly grown it over their tenure, say in the 5-10% range of investments etc... Perhaps some were a bit riskier and were able to more able to leverage their wealth into more growth into the 10-25% range, and so on. Lastly and I suspect leastly would be those who inherited large sums (say millions, or tens of millions), but were able to greatly increase their wealth (say into the billions which is still an achievement).
So there is a spectrum I'm sure, but one could likely broadly categorize them into groupings. Would be interesting to know, but I'm not sure how detailed any of the studies would be. Complicating matters would be that after a certain point in wealth it is likely difficult to start tracking things down complexity wise with various holdings, tax schemes, etc... I'm sure there is all sorts of funny business that goes on to avoid various estate taxation laws about what is "owned" etc..
Other than very few examples, LIFE is the very definition of ephemeral.
Sure there are some things that "stand the test of time", but for 99.9999999999999999999% of us it doesn't. Procreation is about it, and even then there are no certainties.
As someone else posted, the most you can hope for really is that in part you make some small positive difference during your time that has advanced whatever it is incrementally for the next guy. Standing on the shoulders of giants etc...
It might be humbling in retrospect, but hey, that's life...:)
Well there is also the joke about taking 100 million dollars from daddy and though a lot of hard work and business savvy managed to create an empire worth 105 million dollars....
I also recall a stat (which I think was for billionaires), that most by a large margin (something like 85-95%) inherit all their money rather than making it in any way.
The other missing piece is drive or ambition. Some are driven to excel or be the best, while others are OK with other goals (or none). Some people may value other aspects of life and there are multiple versions of "success". While that could be money, or power, it could also be family or freedom, or some combination of those and others. To use the poker analogy, some people might play just to hang out with friends and have some fun, if they loose some money it is worth it to them, others might be more competitive just because they enjoy the challenge etc...
No, however there is a difference. You can't say something is "broken" or "buggy" when it was designed to specifically be that way. You may not like it, and it may annoy you, but as the saying goes, that's a feature not a bug.
I always like making the poker analogy, as it applies to a lot of different things.
Anyway you get dealt a hand (life), and you can do you best to play the perfect hand, you can make sure you have as many "outs" as possible, however sometimes those "outs" pay off, other times they don't, and even if they do, there is no certainty that you'll win. There are a number of variables at play, luck is clearly one, another is the choices you make and how good a player is, but also how good the other players are, their choices, and how lucky they get. Now multiply that by a bunch say in a tournament, again you can do all the right things, and not come out on top, but perhaps do OK. Generally speaking those that play the game right, and generally going to be on top, and generally those that don't will be at the bottom, now multiple that by a thousandfold for the complexity and length of life and there you have it.
However, that analogy assumes game theory that everyone is equal and has equal chances within the realm of the rules. However some by birth are going to get extra cards at every turn to get an advantage over everyone else. This also doesn't mean with certainty any success, however it does impart a statistical advantage. So it isn't to say that anyone can't win, only that everything needs to fall into place, also doesn't say that those with advantage will have success, but they do have some extra rolls of the dice to mix metaphors...:)
#4 basically makes this a moot point regardless of if it actually is feasible or not (which is probably isn't).
Can't travel interstellar distances? That's easy, just slingshot around a black hole! Oh all black holes are fantastically far away? Well I guess you have to travel there conventionally (not feasible). Oh how to you stop at the other end? Well just use another black hole! Oh the other black hole isn't remotely anywhere near where you want to travel... Um well... Science and stuff.
I'm not sure impractical and unfeasible really do it justice at this scale.
Agreed. Not only does it make sense, but it is aligned with Toyota's long standing business strategy which seems to be working very well.
1) Everything you said, but I would also add that after a certain saturation point of the particular demographic of people who might buy an all electric car (i.e. pretty wealthy, commuters who live in the suburbs), in order to continue to sell those cars you have to start hitting other consumers. However for the most part at least for now given the current EV limitations is a pretty hard sell. The expense (particularly given incentives are gone, and some of which were tax based, which if you don't make a lot of money anyway isn't then a big draw) for lower income folks isn't gonna fly. Additionally the range piece doesn't work rurally very well. If you live in an urban area you don't have a garage and have no place to charge your car... All that stuff will be figured out... probably in 15 or 20 years. So let someone else do it, and only enter the market when it is mature.
2) Two is that word "mature". Toyota has never been a cutting edge engineering company. Their business strategy is to take very mature technology, refine it to a fine point, then use it forever. Look at the design longevity of their lineup, it is crazy long compared to other companies. They make a refined design that works very well and then they stick with it for a long time, while they develop something else also for a long refinement period, and rinse and repeat. The result is that they have the best reliability out there, because they aren't using bleeding edge methods, but tried and true designs. They also have the best resale of anyone, for the same reasons in that their brands last and last forever, and rarely have issues, and if anything takes them it will be the eventual rust monster. Anyway, it would be very aligned with their long standing business model to not enter the EV market until not only they are good and ready but also the technology and the infrastructure. Heck they led the way with the most successful and first Prius since 1997! They are going to just continue that until EV is ready for prime time. So not really surprised, nor do I really think Toyota is going to suffer for it at all.
So for the sake of this research lets assume that all planets are on the same plane (they are not). Lets also assume perfectly circular orbits (they are not).
Any other assumptions they want to make? They pretty much took all the realism out of it already.
What would be a really interesting question (and likely take a lot of computational power), is to look at the criteria for launching spacecraft using gravitational techniques, and calculate all of the optimized deployment windows for like the next 100 years, which are the shortest, shortest by planet, when, etc... Now that would be something. Also something useful (which the other is not), where if you see the next best window for a particular planet is coming up, and it won't be that good for another 75 years, you might you know, do something about it and plan ahead or something.
You clearly have forgotten all other version of MS, they ALL had some pretty signification issues at one point or another.
Windows 10 is pretty good, most of the "problems" seem more intentional than accidental in that they are simply part of the MS future business plan more than anything else. Now you might disagree with what that plan is or what it means to you, but there is always Year of the Linux Desktop for you.... [sarcasm]
I mean XP was strong, but only because it was superseding ME and 98 before that so if ever there was bad examples to compare to. Also they merged it with NT which was already a very stable and power platform. Windows 7 if anyone cares to recall was an unmitigated disaster when it was first released for the first year or two, largely because they rushed it out and didn't give hardware folks enough specs or time to develop any drivers for the thing. I remember being like great install Windows 7 and all your hardware fails, then eventually every time you had to re-install the thing you would have to visit every hardware website contained in your computer to independently and install all your drivers one at a time.
So yeah, I'm not sure if it is nostalgia or what, but people have a pretty short memory of how shitty MS Windows was in various iterations at times... Only XP was the best, or Windows 7 forevar! I'll not even speak of 8 with no start menu and the whole forced apps bs. I'd say that XP was the best with the least issues, however as mentioned that's largely because what came before was terrible, and even then it was the first version with the old "you must register your computer with MS first before install" product activation bs which was pretty horrific the first time around. Replace some random hardware, re-register your OS, etc... I remember it would occasionally fail to authenticate and users were forced to physically call Microsoft and talk to someone to manually register your OS. Can you imagine that today? HA! Anyway it's all perspective.
Certainly sounds like the left hand not talking to the right hand sort of thing.
Some department that was dedicated to making this happen just quietly working away oblivious (or not given layoffs) to the fact that they are producing something that probably shouldn't be produced at all, and the resources better spent elsewhere...
I suspect this will be super low volume, but may allow some companies that didn't plan to more easily transition.
My problem is that I have an app that only works on Windows 7 32bit. We're trying to re-develop it for Windows 10 64bit, but it is being a real PITA. At one point I briefly consider the above, extended security update purchase. However it is moot, as a large organization it was decided long ago to transition to Windows 10, and there is no way in hell IT is going to allow Windows 7 to persist on the network. So it's likely not really even an option for me unfortunately. Then again we'd just be delaying the inevitable anyway.
That said, for say smaller orgs that are all Windows 7, that gives them options to properly move over in a more managed way.
As someone that's done all that for the last 20 years for apps that have been around for 20 year prior to me, "tolerable" perhaps in the modern sense, but in comparison the the "dogshit legacy app" it might be considered considerably more. Citrix is a vast improvement over what existed, which perhaps isn't saying much, but still.
That said, to the previous poster, yes I've seen the security stuff first hand. I don't exactly advertise it to users, but it's there, every now and again I accidentally "oh hello there server I'm not supposed to have access to". Users I'm sure randomly save garbage there by accident and then get confused when they can't find it locally.
Another weird Citrix thing I've noticed is it apparently doesn't really like when users have multiple monitor setups with different resolutions... Gets pretty wacky if you do.
Anyway as the local "legacy app guy" its a stopgap measure for sure to actually replacing the apps with something a bit less "vintage", however in almost all cases that takes a ton of time, effort, and money and if you have a lot of them not really something to can do easily never mind all at once. As the parent posted, I remember having to manage local installations for a very large organization with this legacy stuff and evolving technology and it was a real nightmare, never mind trying to get development releases out to at least have the thin veneer of keeping those apps somewhat "modernized" or at least useful. Just having total control over the environment is a pretty big deal by comparison...
Lastly, yes while the Citrix security is a bit iffy, it actually improves real security by simply being a man in the middle. Previous with local installs of these sorts of apps, if you knew what you were doing, you could find all the direct connection details in your local TNS and INI files if you knew where to look, now at least that stuff isn't stored locally anymore (You'd have to take the extra step of bypassing the Citrix security also lol, which I know doesn't sound like much, but it kinda is as it was just sitting all right there for anyone to see if they really wanted to)...
Well you don't really "spool up" reactors to begin with because they are constantly on and constantly producing energy. The only reason to "spool" down a reactor would be to turn it off for maintenance before turning it on again. Bottom line there is no spooling, you just overproduce at times.
Well if you want to be pedantic about it, then it is more gravitational power than solar, then again solar is really nuclear so its all just a big circle back to the same thing.
Agreed. I had the initial thought about not trusting commercial VPN's, and then only trusting one I might create myself. While I don't really know how to do it off hand, I'm pretty sure I could figure it out. Unfortunately it became pretty clear before I even got that far that anything reasonable would be more expensive, and perhaps more importantly I would have to basically get into an agreement for hosting someplace else, which boils down to the same thing but somewhat worse. Do you trust the company and/or place doing the hosting? Not only that, but now your personal details are being stored there as well, just another vector of intrusion.
I currently use the free version of WindScribe, which hasn't been ideal, but that could just because I am using the free version that has some limitations. Anyway I think ultimately as some have already mentioned there is no such thing as total protection, if someone REALLY wants your details, they are gonna get them. However providing your not some sort of darknet kingpin, really all you need is just enough to not be among the low hanging fruit. As it is the low hanging fruit that will be picked 99.99% of the time, all you have to do is make it slightly more of a PITA and that will elevate you mostly out of harms way. Legally getting VPN records particularly in another country isn't impossible, however it's a lot harder than not having to do any of that stuff at all...
I suppose the #5 reason I forgot would be the lack of (or lip service paid) to environmental regulations holding things up. There are plenty of examples of things in China that are possible that just aren't when properly enhanced environmental protections are taken into consideration.
#1 As folks mentioned, property rights. However probably more importantly is the fact that "people" don't "own" land they lease it, though some leases can be as long as 70 years. The closest thing to ownership is by perfect or communities, however that is more about local land management. Additionally the government also has more rights in terms of expropriation for large nationalized projects. So combined it gives them much more flexibility.
#2 Planning, which in part is a result of a lack of democracy. China does long term planning, like really long term. Forget about 5 year plans, or even 25 year, we're talking 50 year plans. As such they are able to avoid potential pitfalls but anticipating issues. So for example if they expect to run a rail line though an area in the next 20 years, they might decide not to renew land leases in that area which would help mitigate those sorts of impact and conflict.
#3 Lack of democracy, which is linked to the planning piece above. Basically they don't have to worry about an election ever 4 years derailing (pun intended!) large projects for political gain and advantage. This one is particular troublesome when there is also a change in which party is elected, as they tend to want to throw out or destroy whatever their rivals have done or were trying to do to limit their successes for the next election cycle continue ad infinitum etc... Only having one party certainly helps in this regard as they're all on the same "team"... Though I expect there are still personal political shenanigans...
#4 Nationalized industry, again you're not going to be ripping off yourself at every opportunity. While there are likely inefficiencies in a non-privatized implementation, there would be less motivation and risk that you are going to get year over year cost increases where the company is just trying to milk the government for more money. People talk about government waste all the time, but when you get down to it, 99% of that (at least in terms of paid cost) is private companies soaking the government for taxpayers money.
So while yes the Chinese system has many flaws and social issues, it does allow for large mega projects at scales impossible elsewhere. That said they aren't infallible either so when they screw up it is also on a rather large scale, purpose built but empty cities for example, or large population displacements for dams, etc...
Pretty much Ontario right now... A weeks worth of -30 followed by a weekend worth of +5, and then the usual -10 to -15 and everything is fucked.
I was looking at the fog last night like it was Stephen King's Mist as I knew what it was going to do by the next morning, cover everything in a thin layer of water which will instantly freeze by the next morning.
Also makes applying salt rather pointless as it just washes away...
Finally an example of where it doesn't really apply. This is some appalling stuff. All of it should be thrown out.
As someone pointed out, while the previous example doesn't exist anymore so the data can be used, whereas the current example does exist and we shouldn't be encouraging/condoning this behavior and should be actively censuring them.
Oh if this isn't the first step to the Matrix I don't know what is...
Step 1: Generate power from human bodies to operate wearable technology. Step 2: Create AI to inhabit wearable technology (probably to help you decide what type of chicken to buy). Step 3: Find Neo...
Slashdot Mirror
Hilarious. Interesting how people like to complain about something unless they specifically benefit from it...
Oh boo hoo! Streaming services bad, make bad content! :( Oh HAI! Buy my streaming content on AppleTV! :)
https://entertainment.slashdot...
https://www.foxnews.com/entert...
"Net result, elimination of all car production lines as auto companies abandon them for more profitable SUV/light truck production resulting in off shoring of car production and loss of American manufacturing jobs"
Only commenting on this piece as it is particularly wrong. While some auto companies may offshore some SUV production, the most profitable light truck production ABSOLUTELY does NOT go offshore. I know this because of a long existing tariff I personally hate called the "Chicken Tax". You can google it if you want all the details, but the bottom line is that many years ago because of a trade dispute (on chickens and a few other things) the US implemented a 25% tax on all imported light trucks, which more less makes it unprofitable to do so. That means that ALL truck production, regardless of brand happens solely in the US. Some parts might be imported, but that is about it. This is also why you get the trend of trucks all being huge behemoths, and more and more trucks being built (profit margins high, no competition, and the bread and butter of the auto industry of the US). The end result being if companies want to sell trucks in the US they have to build a plant and build them there.
So no, it will not be lost light truck production jobs overseas... (as mentions SUV's are different). As for why I dislike the chicken tax, it is only because the truck market is so monotonous in the US because of it. There are tons of cool, interesting trucks, particularly of the smaller and inexpensive variety that never reach the shores of north america because it isn't worth anyone's time to try and market them here due to the 25% tariff making them essentially unprofitable.
There are pros and cons to unions. However I will comment on your power base comment which is totally a thing.
Call it power base, call it membership, call it self-perpetuation. That's ta unions #1 goal, everything else is secondary. It really comes down to motivation.
In the same way that a real estate agent really has little vested interest in getting you a better deal, their interest is their time so the faster they can sell it the better, but since they get a percentage, the more it costs, the more they get paid. So their incentive is to sell expensive houses as fast as possible. Period.
For a union that is membership, and more specifically membership dues. The more members, the more dues, the more dues the more money they get. I had one very illuminating experience where I felt that I went through an interview process that was very clearly unfair, the outcome ridiculous, and the process obviously flawed and gamed. I had though if ever there was a reason to go to my union this is it (first, last). The problem was is there are a couple unions involved for employees. At the time my current was union A, while the position I had applied for was in union B. When I went to go talk to my union rep, they basically said this: Listen, your situation may be grossly unfair, however we're not going to help you. If we did and you got that position, we would lose you as a member, as you would then be a member of Union B. However you can't get any help from Union B, because technically you are not a member. Suck it up and move on.
Which I did, and if I'm honest I didn't really want the job, and was more of proving a point about how rigged the competition was. In the end it was good that I didn't get it anyway. However it did fundamentally teach me about the motivations of unions. It has nothing to do with the altruistic betterment of employees, but rather the self-preservation and growth of their membership, which many times have similar goals, but not always. The problem is that the employer is able to take advantage of where those goals don't exactly align to do whatever they want basically, which really isn't in the employees favor (particularly because you belong to a union you give up certain rights as well).
Well the devils in the details and how the stats are run, but just looking that those two values:
"7% of billionaires inherited all of their money."
That either means that they have more less the same amount of money they inherited, or LOST money so that all of it left is inherited.
"8% inherited nothing"
I think this is the minority I was talking about where 92% of billionaires have inherited at least a portion of their money.
However that leaves a large amount (85%) where that number is somewhere in between. I'd suggest (unfounded guess) that almost all of that would be billionaires that inherited their money and have modestly grown it over their tenure, say in the 5-10% range of investments etc... Perhaps some were a bit riskier and were able to more able to leverage their wealth into more growth into the 10-25% range, and so on. Lastly and I suspect leastly would be those who inherited large sums (say millions, or tens of millions), but were able to greatly increase their wealth (say into the billions which is still an achievement).
So there is a spectrum I'm sure, but one could likely broadly categorize them into groupings. Would be interesting to know, but I'm not sure how detailed any of the studies would be. Complicating matters would be that after a certain point in wealth it is likely difficult to start tracking things down complexity wise with various holdings, tax schemes, etc... I'm sure there is all sorts of funny business that goes on to avoid various estate taxation laws about what is "owned" etc..
Other than very few examples, LIFE is the very definition of ephemeral.
Sure there are some things that "stand the test of time", but for 99.9999999999999999999% of us it doesn't. Procreation is about it, and even then there are no certainties.
As someone else posted, the most you can hope for really is that in part you make some small positive difference during your time that has advanced whatever it is incrementally for the next guy. Standing on the shoulders of giants etc...
It might be humbling in retrospect, but hey, that's life... :)
Well there is also the joke about taking 100 million dollars from daddy and though a lot of hard work and business savvy managed to create an empire worth 105 million dollars....
I also recall a stat (which I think was for billionaires), that most by a large margin (something like 85-95%) inherit all their money rather than making it in any way.
The other missing piece is drive or ambition. Some are driven to excel or be the best, while others are OK with other goals (or none). Some people may value other aspects of life and there are multiple versions of "success". While that could be money, or power, it could also be family or freedom, or some combination of those and others. To use the poker analogy, some people might play just to hang out with friends and have some fun, if they loose some money it is worth it to them, others might be more competitive just because they enjoy the challenge etc...
No, however there is a difference. You can't say something is "broken" or "buggy" when it was designed to specifically be that way. You may not like it, and it may annoy you, but as the saying goes, that's a feature not a bug.
I always like making the poker analogy, as it applies to a lot of different things.
Anyway you get dealt a hand (life), and you can do you best to play the perfect hand, you can make sure you have as many "outs" as possible, however sometimes those "outs" pay off, other times they don't, and even if they do, there is no certainty that you'll win. There are a number of variables at play, luck is clearly one, another is the choices you make and how good a player is, but also how good the other players are, their choices, and how lucky they get. Now multiply that by a bunch say in a tournament, again you can do all the right things, and not come out on top, but perhaps do OK. Generally speaking those that play the game right, and generally going to be on top, and generally those that don't will be at the bottom, now multiple that by a thousandfold for the complexity and length of life and there you have it.
However, that analogy assumes game theory that everyone is equal and has equal chances within the realm of the rules. However some by birth are going to get extra cards at every turn to get an advantage over everyone else. This also doesn't mean with certainty any success, however it does impart a statistical advantage. So it isn't to say that anyone can't win, only that everything needs to fall into place, also doesn't say that those with advantage will have success, but they do have some extra rolls of the dice to mix metaphors... :)
#4 basically makes this a moot point regardless of if it actually is feasible or not (which is probably isn't).
Can't travel interstellar distances? That's easy, just slingshot around a black hole! Oh all black holes are fantastically far away? Well I guess you have to travel there conventionally (not feasible). Oh how to you stop at the other end? Well just use another black hole! Oh the other black hole isn't remotely anywhere near where you want to travel... Um well... Science and stuff.
I'm not sure impractical and unfeasible really do it justice at this scale.
Agreed. Not only does it make sense, but it is aligned with Toyota's long standing business strategy which seems to be working very well.
1) Everything you said, but I would also add that after a certain saturation point of the particular demographic of people who might buy an all electric car (i.e. pretty wealthy, commuters who live in the suburbs), in order to continue to sell those cars you have to start hitting other consumers. However for the most part at least for now given the current EV limitations is a pretty hard sell. The expense (particularly given incentives are gone, and some of which were tax based, which if you don't make a lot of money anyway isn't then a big draw) for lower income folks isn't gonna fly. Additionally the range piece doesn't work rurally very well. If you live in an urban area you don't have a garage and have no place to charge your car... All that stuff will be figured out... probably in 15 or 20 years. So let someone else do it, and only enter the market when it is mature.
2) Two is that word "mature". Toyota has never been a cutting edge engineering company. Their business strategy is to take very mature technology, refine it to a fine point, then use it forever. Look at the design longevity of their lineup, it is crazy long compared to other companies. They make a refined design that works very well and then they stick with it for a long time, while they develop something else also for a long refinement period, and rinse and repeat. The result is that they have the best reliability out there, because they aren't using bleeding edge methods, but tried and true designs. They also have the best resale of anyone, for the same reasons in that their brands last and last forever, and rarely have issues, and if anything takes them it will be the eventual rust monster. Anyway, it would be very aligned with their long standing business model to not enter the EV market until not only they are good and ready but also the technology and the infrastructure. Heck they led the way with the most successful and first Prius since 1997! They are going to just continue that until EV is ready for prime time. So not really surprised, nor do I really think Toyota is going to suffer for it at all.
Literally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So for the sake of this research lets assume that all planets are on the same plane (they are not). Lets also assume perfectly circular orbits (they are not).
Any other assumptions they want to make? They pretty much took all the realism out of it already.
What would be a really interesting question (and likely take a lot of computational power), is to look at the criteria for launching spacecraft using gravitational techniques, and calculate all of the optimized deployment windows for like the next 100 years, which are the shortest, shortest by planet, when, etc... Now that would be something. Also something useful (which the other is not), where if you see the next best window for a particular planet is coming up, and it won't be that good for another 75 years, you might you know, do something about it and plan ahead or something.
LOL!
You clearly have forgotten all other version of MS, they ALL had some pretty signification issues at one point or another.
Windows 10 is pretty good, most of the "problems" seem more intentional than accidental in that they are simply part of the MS future business plan more than anything else. Now you might disagree with what that plan is or what it means to you, but there is always Year of the Linux Desktop for you.... [sarcasm]
I mean XP was strong, but only because it was superseding ME and 98 before that so if ever there was bad examples to compare to. Also they merged it with NT which was already a very stable and power platform. Windows 7 if anyone cares to recall was an unmitigated disaster when it was first released for the first year or two, largely because they rushed it out and didn't give hardware folks enough specs or time to develop any drivers for the thing. I remember being like great install Windows 7 and all your hardware fails, then eventually every time you had to re-install the thing you would have to visit every hardware website contained in your computer to independently and install all your drivers one at a time.
So yeah, I'm not sure if it is nostalgia or what, but people have a pretty short memory of how shitty MS Windows was in various iterations at times... Only XP was the best, or Windows 7 forevar! I'll not even speak of 8 with no start menu and the whole forced apps bs. I'd say that XP was the best with the least issues, however as mentioned that's largely because what came before was terrible, and even then it was the first version with the old "you must register your computer with MS first before install" product activation bs which was pretty horrific the first time around. Replace some random hardware, re-register your OS, etc... I remember it would occasionally fail to authenticate and users were forced to physically call Microsoft and talk to someone to manually register your OS. Can you imagine that today? HA! Anyway it's all perspective.
Certainly sounds like the left hand not talking to the right hand sort of thing.
Some department that was dedicated to making this happen just quietly working away oblivious (or not given layoffs) to the fact that they are producing something that probably shouldn't be produced at all, and the resources better spent elsewhere...
I suspect this will be super low volume, but may allow some companies that didn't plan to more easily transition.
My problem is that I have an app that only works on Windows 7 32bit. We're trying to re-develop it for Windows 10 64bit, but it is being a real PITA. At one point I briefly consider the above, extended security update purchase. However it is moot, as a large organization it was decided long ago to transition to Windows 10, and there is no way in hell IT is going to allow Windows 7 to persist on the network. So it's likely not really even an option for me unfortunately. Then again we'd just be delaying the inevitable anyway.
That said, for say smaller orgs that are all Windows 7, that gives them options to properly move over in a more managed way.
As someone that's done all that for the last 20 years for apps that have been around for 20 year prior to me, "tolerable" perhaps in the modern sense, but in comparison the the "dogshit legacy app" it might be considered considerably more. Citrix is a vast improvement over what existed, which perhaps isn't saying much, but still.
That said, to the previous poster, yes I've seen the security stuff first hand. I don't exactly advertise it to users, but it's there, every now and again I accidentally "oh hello there server I'm not supposed to have access to". Users I'm sure randomly save garbage there by accident and then get confused when they can't find it locally.
Another weird Citrix thing I've noticed is it apparently doesn't really like when users have multiple monitor setups with different resolutions... Gets pretty wacky if you do.
Anyway as the local "legacy app guy" its a stopgap measure for sure to actually replacing the apps with something a bit less "vintage", however in almost all cases that takes a ton of time, effort, and money and if you have a lot of them not really something to can do easily never mind all at once. As the parent posted, I remember having to manage local installations for a very large organization with this legacy stuff and evolving technology and it was a real nightmare, never mind trying to get development releases out to at least have the thin veneer of keeping those apps somewhat "modernized" or at least useful. Just having total control over the environment is a pretty big deal by comparison...
Lastly, yes while the Citrix security is a bit iffy, it actually improves real security by simply being a man in the middle. Previous with local installs of these sorts of apps, if you knew what you were doing, you could find all the direct connection details in your local TNS and INI files if you knew where to look, now at least that stuff isn't stored locally anymore (You'd have to take the extra step of bypassing the Citrix security also lol, which I know doesn't sound like much, but it kinda is as it was just sitting all right there for anyone to see if they really wanted to)...
Well you don't really "spool up" reactors to begin with because they are constantly on and constantly producing energy. The only reason to "spool" down a reactor would be to turn it off for maintenance before turning it on again. Bottom line there is no spooling, you just overproduce at times.
Well if you want to be pedantic about it, then it is more gravitational power than solar, then again solar is really nuclear so its all just a big circle back to the same thing.
Agreed. I had the initial thought about not trusting commercial VPN's, and then only trusting one I might create myself. While I don't really know how to do it off hand, I'm pretty sure I could figure it out. Unfortunately it became pretty clear before I even got that far that anything reasonable would be more expensive, and perhaps more importantly I would have to basically get into an agreement for hosting someplace else, which boils down to the same thing but somewhat worse. Do you trust the company and/or place doing the hosting? Not only that, but now your personal details are being stored there as well, just another vector of intrusion.
I currently use the free version of WindScribe, which hasn't been ideal, but that could just because I am using the free version that has some limitations. Anyway I think ultimately as some have already mentioned there is no such thing as total protection, if someone REALLY wants your details, they are gonna get them. However providing your not some sort of darknet kingpin, really all you need is just enough to not be among the low hanging fruit. As it is the low hanging fruit that will be picked 99.99% of the time, all you have to do is make it slightly more of a PITA and that will elevate you mostly out of harms way. Legally getting VPN records particularly in another country isn't impossible, however it's a lot harder than not having to do any of that stuff at all...
I suppose the #5 reason I forgot would be the lack of (or lip service paid) to environmental regulations holding things up. There are plenty of examples of things in China that are possible that just aren't when properly enhanced environmental protections are taken into consideration.
Four reasons mainly:
#1 As folks mentioned, property rights. However probably more importantly is the fact that "people" don't "own" land they lease it, though some leases can be as long as 70 years. The closest thing to ownership is by perfect or communities, however that is more about local land management. Additionally the government also has more rights in terms of expropriation for large nationalized projects. So combined it gives them much more flexibility.
#2 Planning, which in part is a result of a lack of democracy. China does long term planning, like really long term. Forget about 5 year plans, or even 25 year, we're talking 50 year plans. As such they are able to avoid potential pitfalls but anticipating issues. So for example if they expect to run a rail line though an area in the next 20 years, they might decide not to renew land leases in that area which would help mitigate those sorts of impact and conflict.
#3 Lack of democracy, which is linked to the planning piece above. Basically they don't have to worry about an election ever 4 years derailing (pun intended!) large projects for political gain and advantage. This one is particular troublesome when there is also a change in which party is elected, as they tend to want to throw out or destroy whatever their rivals have done or were trying to do to limit their successes for the next election cycle continue ad infinitum etc... Only having one party certainly helps in this regard as they're all on the same "team"... Though I expect there are still personal political shenanigans...
#4 Nationalized industry, again you're not going to be ripping off yourself at every opportunity. While there are likely inefficiencies in a non-privatized implementation, there would be less motivation and risk that you are going to get year over year cost increases where the company is just trying to milk the government for more money. People talk about government waste all the time, but when you get down to it, 99% of that (at least in terms of paid cost) is private companies soaking the government for taxpayers money.
So while yes the Chinese system has many flaws and social issues, it does allow for large mega projects at scales impossible elsewhere. That said they aren't infallible either so when they screw up it is also on a rather large scale, purpose built but empty cities for example, or large population displacements for dams, etc...
Your ship looks like walnut and a pancake got squished together...
Han: "Hey!"
Pretty much Ontario right now... A weeks worth of -30 followed by a weekend worth of +5, and then the usual -10 to -15 and everything is fucked.
I was looking at the fog last night like it was Stephen King's Mist as I knew what it was going to do by the next morning, cover everything in a thin layer of water which will instantly freeze by the next morning.
Also makes applying salt rather pointless as it just washes away...
Finally an example of where it doesn't really apply. This is some appalling stuff. All of it should be thrown out.
As someone pointed out, while the previous example doesn't exist anymore so the data can be used, whereas the current example does exist and we shouldn't be encouraging/condoning this behavior and should be actively censuring them.
Oh if this isn't the first step to the Matrix I don't know what is...
Step 1: Generate power from human bodies to operate wearable technology.
Step 2: Create AI to inhabit wearable technology (probably to help you decide what type of chicken to buy).
Step 3: Find Neo...