My first computer only had 64k memory and my current one has 16GB. Cellphones used to be lugged around in cases, now they can fit on my wrist. People used to say humans can't fly. Therefore we will get the probe within 50 years.
Five hundred years ago, the fastest a human being had ever travelled was 25mph on a horse. A hundred years ago, early planes could reach 100mph. Fifty years ago, the Apollo missions travelled at 24,000 mph.
In another fifty years, we'll have space liners going several times the speed of light, and popping to an asteroid will be like walking over the road to a corner shop.
If they haven't produced the product yet, why were they even paying marketers?
Surely that is pre-emptive and wasteful, after all, the product was going to be so good it would sell itself.
Contrary to popular wisdom, if you build a better mousetrap and don't market it, the world doesn't beat a path to your door.
Where "we" means slashdot-reading geeks, as opposed to "the general public".
Seriously, do people here really think that if there was a mass market for phones with huge removable batteries, Samsung or HTC or whoever wouldn't have jumped in and grabbed it?
That particular solution doesn't work for everyone. A silicone doll very quickly becomes just another piece of furniture collecting dust. A good book is a far better substitute for friends.
Presumably this is a market that hasn't been exploited much in the US?
Similar to NZ, here in the UK there's no way Uber will be able to undercut the supermarkets' own delivery charges. The only thing I can think of that they could offer would be a faster service (rather than booking a two hour slot tomorrow with the supermarket or whatever), but in that case the driver would also have to do the shopping for you.
I've seen the people who pick the orders in one of the stores here in Canada. They have a cart that holds six large shopping baskets and one person goes around the store for however many orders they are shopping for. I'm not assuming that every basket is an order as some orders could be large.
This is for the pick-up service some stores offer. You order online and some time later you park your car in one of a few spaces near the entrance. (Usually just past the handicapped spots.) Someone brings out your order to the car and you don't have to go into the store.
All you would have to do is forward the order confirmation to Uber and Uber would tell the store which car would be picking up the order. It's already paid for so the driver doesn't have to worry about anything. They bring it to you and everything is done.
The only deliveries that happen here are for people that come into the store and pay for the delivery. The groceries go into cardboard boxes which are usually put at the front of the store until the delivery person picks them up. They go into a non-refrigerated vehicle while on deliveries. It could be hours before you get your food but then you need time to get back home anyways.
I still don't see what the advantage of using Uber over the supermarket delivery services is. Currently, if you pick it up yourself, you're saving the delivery charge at the cost of your time. If you pay Uber to pick it up for you, you're just paying them instead of the supermarket, and I can't imagine Uber will be any cheaper than the five or six quid the supermarket charges.
Which bit of " the feds spending hundreds of manhours to bust your local weed dealer" do you think isn't following proper procedures?
Those manhours are getting warrants and court orders for the tracking data for everyone they bust with a joint in their pocket, and thus finding that local dealer that they all visit... Nothing illegal or improper about that, just a furthering of self inflicted surveillance.
You would still need to have a really good motive in order to convict a 90 year old of murder.
In an actual criminal trial, the motive is pretty much irrelevant.
"I had no good reason to hack that person to death" is not much of a defence when you're caught with a bloody axe in your hands running out of someone's front door.
You didn't understand it the last three times it was explained to you, what good would explaining it in more detail do?! You apparently need less detail. Just stick to, "Yer rong!"
Following this as a disinterested and broadly uninterested observer, the counter-argument to "Tesla is making a net loss as set out in their published accounts" seems to be just "well, they're making a gross profit so it doesn't matter".
As anyone who has had anything to do with an actual business knows, it really doesn't matter what your revenue or gross profit is if you're making a net loss and end up going bust because of negative cash flow.
Clearly, people invest in Tesla because they believe that, in the long run, they will increase sales enough to cover their losses. That is a prediction, not an accurate reflection of the present state of their finances.
This serves to catch drivers who take an opportunity to steal something when it arises, not who are actively seeking to steal.
Seems like a pointless distinction to me. Definitely a pointless distinction legally.
People who are serious, actives thieves will always steal, whereas if you make things a bit more difficult, you prevent a lot of opportunist crime.
Locking your house or car doors won't stop a determined thief, but it will certainly put off casual passers by from helping themselves to something they can see through the window.
This suggestion checks out in a world where rich people dont steal, and yet...
But do they steal at a lower rate than the poor? If the rate of theft is lower, and savings from shrinkage and reshipping costs is still higher than wages then is it economical viable to do so?
The richer you are, the more the risks of getting caught outweigh the potential gain
If you are homeless and starving, you're not going to care if you get caught and put in a cell overnight and given a bowl of soup, a bread roll and a stern talking to.
But if you're a lawyer or doctor and you find a wallet with a couple of hundred cash in it in the street, the (very small) risk of getting caught if you pocket it is massively multiplied by the negative impact if you are caught, get a trivial fine, but lose your career, house, etc.
If you're even moderately well off, the reward part of the reward/risk calculation has to be pretty big to make crime worthwhile.
Isn't the point that Amazon will make the casual/opportunitst sort of thief think twice, on the basis that if Amazon admit to this they probably/possibly have more sneaky methods to catch cheats?
You're never going to stop serious thieves entirely in any case, but minimising losses is just something that businesses have to do.
>Well, if you need to offend people to exert your morals, there's something wrong with you or your work environment, no other way around it.
Not necessarily.
Let's say it's part of your morals to base your opinions on evidence, logic and reason. There are plenty of politically incorrect ideas that may offend someone that are consistent with morals being science based.
For example, there's no definitive science that says there's a "gay gene" or that people are "born gay." (one simple example of this are identical twins where one is gay and one is straight) But if you suggest sexual preference may be a behavior that is affected by environment as well as genetics, some will find that offensive.
Found the guy who's been reported to HR for having 'humourous' homophobic post-it notes on his monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
My first computer only had 64k memory and my current one has 16GB. Cellphones used to be lugged around in cases, now they can fit on my wrist. People used to say humans can't fly. Therefore we will get the probe within 50 years.
Five hundred years ago, the fastest a human being had ever travelled was 25mph on a horse. A hundred years ago, early planes could reach 100mph. Fifty years ago, the Apollo missions travelled at 24,000 mph.
In another fifty years, we'll have space liners going several times the speed of light, and popping to an asteroid will be like walking over the road to a corner shop.
We are the apex predators. We used to hunt deer. Now we don't nearly as much. We should hunt and eat deer again.
Barefoot, with spears.
Spears are for wimps. Real men just use rocks.
If they haven't produced the product yet, why were they even paying marketers? Surely that is pre-emptive and wasteful, after all, the product was going to be so good it would sell itself.
Contrary to popular wisdom, if you build a better mousetrap and don't market it, the world doesn't beat a path to your door.
It's not sexy but it's what we want.
Where "we" means slashdot-reading geeks, as opposed to "the general public".
Seriously, do people here really think that if there was a mass market for phones with huge removable batteries, Samsung or HTC or whoever wouldn't have jumped in and grabbed it?
That particular solution doesn't work for everyone. A silicone doll very quickly becomes just another piece of furniture collecting dust. A good book is a far better substitute for friends.
Yeah, but the pages get stuck together.
Similar to NZ, here in the UK there's no way Uber will be able to undercut the supermarkets' own delivery charges. The only thing I can think of that they could offer would be a faster service (rather than booking a two hour slot tomorrow with the supermarket or whatever), but in that case the driver would also have to do the shopping for you.
I've seen the people who pick the orders in one of the stores here in Canada. They have a cart that holds six large shopping baskets and one person goes around the store for however many orders they are shopping for. I'm not assuming that every basket is an order as some orders could be large.
This is for the pick-up service some stores offer. You order online and some time later you park your car in one of a few spaces near the entrance. (Usually just past the handicapped spots.) Someone brings out your order to the car and you don't have to go into the store.
All you would have to do is forward the order confirmation to Uber and Uber would tell the store which car would be picking up the order. It's already paid for so the driver doesn't have to worry about anything. They bring it to you and everything is done.
The only deliveries that happen here are for people that come into the store and pay for the delivery. The groceries go into cardboard boxes which are usually put at the front of the store until the delivery person picks them up. They go into a non-refrigerated vehicle while on deliveries. It could be hours before you get your food but then you need time to get back home anyways.
I still don't see what the advantage of using Uber over the supermarket delivery services is. Currently, if you pick it up yourself, you're saving the delivery charge at the cost of your time. If you pay Uber to pick it up for you, you're just paying them instead of the supermarket, and I can't imagine Uber will be any cheaper than the five or six quid the supermarket charges.
cab drivers would offer to hook you up with a weed connection or prostitutes
What could possibly go wrong with taking up the offer of illegal services by a stranger in a strange town?
Are they absolutely certain about the time sync between the cameras and the fitbit? Are they certain that the fitbit data corresponds with death?
It's pretty shocking how few people in Law Enforcement check on slashdot before jumping to conclusions isn't it?
Depends on who they murdered
Yes, that's the "well it would be morally justifiable to murder a baby Adolf Hitler, therefore child murder is not always bad" argument.
Which bit of " the feds spending hundreds of manhours to bust your local weed dealer" do you think isn't following proper procedures?
Those manhours are getting warrants and court orders for the tracking data for everyone they bust with a joint in their pocket, and thus finding that local dealer that they all visit... Nothing illegal or improper about that, just a furthering of self inflicted surveillance.
Found the dope fiend!
You would still need to have a really good motive in order to convict a 90 year old of murder.
In an actual criminal trial, the motive is pretty much irrelevant.
"I had no good reason to hack that person to death" is not much of a defence when you're caught with a bloody axe in your hands running out of someone's front door.
Oh man.
What is our youth coming to?
Maybe they grew up a bit and started watching Star Trek instead?
*Runs for cover*
he is also hugely anti-union
That appears to be a plus point for most people on slashdot.
The SEC isn't punishing him because he hurt a minority of shorts - they're punishing him because he broke SEC regulations.
And those regulations are designed to protect actual stockholders, not people gambling on secondary products associated with the stock.
You didn't understand it the last three times it was explained to you, what good would explaining it in more detail do?! You apparently need less detail. Just stick to, "Yer rong!"
Following this as a disinterested and broadly uninterested observer, the counter-argument to "Tesla is making a net loss as set out in their published accounts" seems to be just "well, they're making a gross profit so it doesn't matter".
As anyone who has had anything to do with an actual business knows, it really doesn't matter what your revenue or gross profit is if you're making a net loss and end up going bust because of negative cash flow.
Clearly, people invest in Tesla because they believe that, in the long run, they will increase sales enough to cover their losses. That is a prediction, not an accurate reflection of the present state of their finances.
Things are immeasurable because they are really fucking small and we are big, that’s QM for Idiots.
Just occasionally, you actually learn something on the internet.
Roughly calculating the gravity of an object shouldn't be that difficult. It's not rocket science...
Life as we know it, Jim.
Ye canna change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.
...and everyone wrong here should be banned on slashdot?
*tumbleweed*
This serves to catch drivers who take an opportunity to steal something when it arises, not who are actively seeking to steal.
Seems like a pointless distinction to me. Definitely a pointless distinction legally.
People who are serious, actives thieves will always steal, whereas if you make things a bit more difficult, you prevent a lot of opportunist crime.
Locking your house or car doors won't stop a determined thief, but it will certainly put off casual passers by from helping themselves to something they can see through the window.
Walmart employees, however, don't hover around in the parking lot and steal merchandise from my cart as I'm putting it in the car.
Well don't you live in a fancy area then?
This suggestion checks out in a world where rich people dont steal, and yet...
But do they steal at a lower rate than the poor? If the rate of theft is lower, and savings from shrinkage and reshipping costs is still higher than wages then is it economical viable to do so?
The richer you are, the more the risks of getting caught outweigh the potential gain
If you are homeless and starving, you're not going to care if you get caught and put in a cell overnight and given a bowl of soup, a bread roll and a stern talking to.
But if you're a lawyer or doctor and you find a wallet with a couple of hundred cash in it in the street, the (very small) risk of getting caught if you pocket it is massively multiplied by the negative impact if you are caught, get a trivial fine, but lose your career, house, etc.
If you're even moderately well off, the reward part of the reward/risk calculation has to be pretty big to make crime worthwhile.
You're never going to stop serious thieves entirely in any case, but minimising losses is just something that businesses have to do.
>Well, if you need to offend people to exert your morals, there's something wrong with you or your work environment, no other way around it.
Not necessarily.
Let's say it's part of your morals to base your opinions on evidence, logic and reason. There are plenty of politically incorrect ideas that may offend someone that are consistent with morals being science based.
For example, there's no definitive science that says there's a "gay gene" or that people are "born gay." (one simple example of this are identical twins where one is gay and one is straight) But if you suggest sexual preference may be a behavior that is affected by environment as well as genetics, some will find that offensive.
Found the guy who's been reported to HR for having 'humourous' homophobic post-it notes on his monitor.