That's a great relief, since we all know that making something illegal 100% guarantees it won't be used.
That is a version of the feeble libertarian argument that making murder (etc) a crime doesn't 100% stop murders, and therefore laws against murder (etc) are pointless.
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Bravest thing I've ever seen anyone post on Slashdot.
there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
Which is as about as relevant to the average consumer as saying 'well you can always study Computer Science for a couple of years and program your own Mobile OS...'
see all of the HR departments that won't even condsider you for a position if you don't have a large social media presence that they can look up before the interview
I keep hearing people on slashdot say this, but is it even slightly true? I've never come across anyone in HR or anywhere else ask for this.
It would be different if you were applying for a job as a social media marketing guru or something, I suppose, but that hardly seems likely for slashdot's demographic.
As for Via, no idea, but that would raise the question of who inherited the Cyrix/Centaur IP
FTFY. It seems they continue to sell their CPUs, though these designs and processes don't look exactly new. https://www.viatech.com/en/sil...
fuck off. does it make your pecker a little longer and wider if you correct someone's mistakes in a slashdot post? i bet your wife and/or husband wishes it did.
The basis of rational discourse is for people to (calmly) correct mistakes where they find them.
Otherwise, you descend into a mess where any non-factual statement is as valid as any other.
There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.
Exactly this. Every other claimed “benefit” boils down to the bean counters attempting self-justification - they know it’s about the money, but they don’t like saying it.
Why would a bean counter need to justify saving money? HR or something I could understand.
If divers got in there, surely they can get some more divers in there with some more equipment, and then tow the kids out of there in spite of their lack of swimming ability?
I'm fairly sure they have considered this cunning plan already.
$4.9 billion in subsidies as of three years ago, and still counting.
If you had bothered reading the article you linked to you would have seen that the subsidies break down as follows:
1. $750 million to build a solar plant, and $260 million in property tax breaks, on a project which New York state expects to generate 3,000 jobs and replace a Steel factory.
2. $497 million in tax credits for solar installation; a tax break available to ALL solar providers.
3. $1.5 billion in subsidies paid to solar consumers (ie. not paid to Elon or any of his companies).
4. $1.3 billion in undefined "incentives" to build a battery factory - probably also composed of tax-breaks intended to support an extremely profitable venture which will greatly benefit Nevada (later in the story they point out that Nevada expects to get back $100 billion in "economic impact").
5. $517 million from collecting "environmental credits" from competitors. This is not "taxpayer money".
6. $20 million in yet more undefined subsidies for a launch facility; again, a great deal for Texas given the profitability of SpaceX.
Now, the original claim was that "an awful lot of tax dollars are spent inflating his ego", and, to support this claim, you linked to a jumbled mass of programs totalling $4.9 billion. Out of that $4.9 billion, we can discount $1.5 immediately since it was given to consumers as part of a larger solar subsidy which has nothing to do with Elon. That leaves $3.4 billion. We can further subtract the $497 million given to Tesla because, again, these are programs available to (and used by) all solar providers. We are down to $2.9 billion.
We can also take out the $517 million taken from competitors because... well, don't be stupid. Now we have $2.4 billion.
Of that $2.4 billion, $750 million is being used to construct a facility which the government will own. So that's about $1.6 billion left.
So the actual amount of money, according to your own source, which is being spent specifically to "inflate his ego" is about $1.6 billion... and, again according to your own source, almost all of this money is composed of tax breaks rather than direct spending. Tax breaks which, according to the government, should stimulate the economy to the tune of $100 billion over 2 decades.
Quelle horreur.
But the underlying point is that, even if in net terms he received 0 dollars, he is still being funded by the taxpayer to create a large and diverse business empire risk-free, and with the prospect of one of the longshots coming off and making him a zillionaire.
Subsidies reduce the investment cost (and thereby reduce the risk) of low-return investments that the legislature (or other subsidy-issuing authority) has determined are important for society to pursue.
This would be fine if any investments that pay off didn't become risk-free cashcows for the private owner with no return for the government.
But surely even you can comprehend that they're making a whole boatload of revenue, with a pretty normal business model that leads to big profits after they stop making huge capital investments to build factories... right?
Capital investments like building factories don't come out of profit, except indirectly through depreciation.
What huge capital investments do is cause cash flow issues. So you have to borrow money to keep your cashflow positive. The question is whether future profits will eventually cover this.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great relief, since we all know that making something illegal 100% guarantees it won't be used.
That is a version of the feeble libertarian argument that making murder (etc) a crime doesn't 100% stop murders, and therefore laws against murder (etc) are pointless.
Your last election was a choice between bad and worse. You cloose bad.
No, they chose worst.
In the UK, trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one (except in cases where the government has changed the law e.g. to make Raves illegal).
Interestingly, there is no such thing as private land in the UK. All land ultimately belongs to the Crown.
Was it good that Microsoft ruled the PC platform for 20 years?
Yes, and it's a good thing they continue to do so. IT/web/PC market expansion was slow until the mid 1990s when Microsoft really started to dominate things. Turns out a common platform really helps industries grow by leaps and bounds. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have to port your code to 7 different platforms, build 6 different adapter cards for different buses, etc. A common platform is a good thing for nearly any market. You can argue if Microsoft was "good or bad", but the concept of a common OS for 95% of all the world was most definitely a good thing.
Bravest thing I've ever seen anyone post on Slashdot.
there's Android which you can perfectly use without Google services and which is free to download, modify and compile.
Which is as about as relevant to the average consumer as saying 'well you can always study Computer Science for a couple of years and program your own Mobile OS...'
see all of the HR departments that won't even condsider you for a position if you don't have a large social media presence that they can look up before the interview
I keep hearing people on slashdot say this, but is it even slightly true? I've never come across anyone in HR or anywhere else ask for this.
It would be different if you were applying for a job as a social media marketing guru or something, I suppose, but that hardly seems likely for slashdot's demographic.
What company thrives on blockchain today?
Advertising, PR and marketing companies, I imagine.
As for Via, no idea, but that would raise the question of who inherited the Cyrix/Centaur IP
FTFY. It seems they continue to sell their CPUs, though these designs and processes don't look exactly new. https://www.viatech.com/en/sil...
fuck off. does it make your pecker a little longer and wider if you correct someone's mistakes in a slashdot post? i bet your wife and/or husband wishes it did.
The basis of rational discourse is for people to (calmly) correct mistakes where they find them.
Otherwise, you descend into a mess where any non-factual statement is as valid as any other.
Open Offices Make You Less Open
That's why I switched to Libre Offices.
Congratulations! You are the one hundredth person to make the exact same comment in this thread!
There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.
Exactly this. Every other claimed “benefit” boils down to the bean counters attempting self-justification - they know it’s about the money, but they don’t like saying it.
Why would a bean counter need to justify saving money? HR or something I could understand.
Of course, sales and marketing people had private offices with overstuffed chairs, and frequently amenities like a minifridge.
And obviously sales and marketing people never have to meet external customers in their offices and make them comfortable or anything...
Management often operates on perception.
Managers are, by and large, a waste. They certainly are when management is all they do.
No doubt you have reached this considered view after many years in management?
I am convinced that in any office, 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people.
If so, those 10% are fucking idiots.
I thought people working for them had to be intelligent. Apparently, I was wrong.
Should have used the stock "military intelligence is an oxymoron" gag instead to save time.
Who cares? It's an awful movie once you strip away the special effects.
Literally no plot, huge long, boring scenes. It's awful.
If you were to remove the soundtrack as well, you'd see how damn boring some of those space-scenes are.
The ending was always quite obvious in intent, but terrible in execution.
Found the Star Wars fan.
get high on catnip
I really don't want to be anywhere near a tiger high on catnip.
A ten pound house cat going mental is one thing, a four hundred pound tiger would be something else.
MMS is not SMS. You can tell by looking at the first letters.
It's quite close though!
Use flamethrowers to boil the water and dry out the caves.
Why not a small nuclear bomb?
It's only marginally more insane.
Seconded. This is precisely why slashdot is actually worth visiting.
Failing that there's always clingfilm & gaffer tape.
Clingfilm is for wimps.
If divers got in there, surely they can get some more divers in there with some more equipment, and then tow the kids out of there in spite of their lack of swimming ability?
I'm fairly sure they have considered this cunning plan already.
$4.9 billion in subsidies as of three years ago, and still counting.
If you had bothered reading the article you linked to you would have seen that the subsidies break down as follows:
1. $750 million to build a solar plant, and $260 million in property tax breaks, on a project which New York state expects to generate 3,000 jobs and replace a Steel factory. 2. $497 million in tax credits for solar installation; a tax break available to ALL solar providers. 3. $1.5 billion in subsidies paid to solar consumers (ie. not paid to Elon or any of his companies). 4. $1.3 billion in undefined "incentives" to build a battery factory - probably also composed of tax-breaks intended to support an extremely profitable venture which will greatly benefit Nevada (later in the story they point out that Nevada expects to get back $100 billion in "economic impact"). 5. $517 million from collecting "environmental credits" from competitors. This is not "taxpayer money". 6. $20 million in yet more undefined subsidies for a launch facility; again, a great deal for Texas given the profitability of SpaceX.
Now, the original claim was that "an awful lot of tax dollars are spent inflating his ego", and, to support this claim, you linked to a jumbled mass of programs totalling $4.9 billion. Out of that $4.9 billion, we can discount $1.5 immediately since it was given to consumers as part of a larger solar subsidy which has nothing to do with Elon. That leaves $3.4 billion. We can further subtract the $497 million given to Tesla because, again, these are programs available to (and used by) all solar providers. We are down to $2.9 billion.
We can also take out the $517 million taken from competitors because ... well, don't be stupid. Now we have $2.4 billion.
Of that $2.4 billion, $750 million is being used to construct a facility which the government will own. So that's about $1.6 billion left.
So the actual amount of money, according to your own source, which is being spent specifically to "inflate his ego" is about $1.6 billion ... and, again according to your own source, almost all of this money is composed of tax breaks rather than direct spending. Tax breaks which, according to the government, should stimulate the economy to the tune of $100 billion over 2 decades.
Quelle horreur.
But the underlying point is that, even if in net terms he received 0 dollars, he is still being funded by the taxpayer to create a large and diverse business empire risk-free, and with the prospect of one of the longshots coming off and making him a zillionaire.
"...underpinning long-shot start-ups."
That is precisely what subsidies are for.
Subsidies reduce the investment cost (and thereby reduce the risk) of low-return investments that the legislature (or other subsidy-issuing authority) has determined are important for society to pursue.
This would be fine if any investments that pay off didn't become risk-free cashcows for the private owner with no return for the government.
But surely even you can comprehend that they're making a whole boatload of revenue, with a pretty normal business model that leads to big profits after they stop making huge capital investments to build factories... right?
Capital investments like building factories don't come out of profit, except indirectly through depreciation.
What huge capital investments do is cause cash flow issues. So you have to borrow money to keep your cashflow positive. The question is whether future profits will eventually cover this.