None of those cases indicate the startup in question was actually successful. Being sold for 10 million when you owe investors 20 million isn't success. Presumably the common stock was worth nothing because the sale was basically a liquidation. The investors signed off on it in exchange for getting whatever money did come in but they didn't make any money on the deal since the worth of the company minus investments was in fact negative.
Just because a startup doesn't go bankrupt doesn't mean it was successful.
Copyright ownership does not mean something cannot be distributed or given away or copied, how would anyone publish anything then? Copyright ownership is merely legal control over how something is copied and distributed and the owner get's to define how people can and cannot copy their work. For example, the copyright owner of a book would allows a printer to create copies of their copyrighted content in each book that they print. There's limits on the control with things like fair use and the first sale doctrine.
A licence is merely a legal statement defining exactly how a given piece of copyrighted work can be copied. As the copyright owner, and only as the owner ultimately, you can licence the work in any way you want. The license may be fairly complex such is the case with the GPL however it does not need to be such as with the MIT license. A work with no copyright owner is in the public domain and can be distributed and copied and modified with no limits.
Licences differ from public domain in that the copyright owner can use the legal system to claim copyright infringement on those who break the licence. A work in the public domain has no copyright owner and as a result no one can take you to court over it or enforce any licence on the work (in theory, in practice money trumps everything).
At around $50+/hour of driving taxis aren't exactly cheap. Existing car shares are around a forth of the price so quiet clearly the whole "human driver" part is rather expensive.
First of all, cost is a big driver of user behavior. As a result anything which makes something cheaper will likely change user behavior. I suspect that a big part of the cost of existing car sharing programs is the logistics of keeping a lot of cars near where people live. If you could instead keep most in cheap industrial areas and move around to meet demand on their own then you'd save a lot of cost. That in turn can be passed onto customers.
Convenience is another big driver, if you make something more convenient then people are more likely to use it. A self-driving car would remove most of the differences in convenience between owning a car and something like ZipCar. The car would be at your door so no need to walk to the closest car sharing location. The car can return itself so you can actually make one way trips. They'll also be a lower chance of no cars being available since they can come to you from further away rather than being limited to just the nearby locations.
I've lived in both places actually and NYC is in fact a much easier commute. Compared to NY the Bay Area doesn't have public transportation and SF's traffic is only marginally better.
Because most of Google's employees don't live in SF and commuting into SF is a giant cluster fuck. The same issue with moving people out of SF applies to moving people into SF.
How making money requires allowing other people to limit sequels and what not that you do?
That's up to me to choose based on how much money they offer me, now isn't it? Why should I not be allowed to sell my right to make sequels and what I can do with my creations?
Yeah, I'd sure hate to be able to make money from my creations. What an awful system. How dare someone even think of giving me money for my hard earned work.
a) It's not a lot of data per link, but it is a lot of links. That 20 zloty plan is one link. Marta has 554 buses and 38 rail stations.
Since you can't do the math apparently I'll have to. $20 per bus per month comes out to under $150k per year to have GSM data everywhere. For comparison, the Breeze Card program had a $100 million budget and Marta has a yearly budget of $400 million.
So no it's not a lot of links or a lot of data or a lot of cost although it is sad how people can't do simple math and research anymore.
b) You have supplied no dataon the reliability of that link
What part of "There's a lot of reasons to not go with a GSM based approach but data cost is not one of them" is hard for you to read?
c) Pricing in Poland is not particularly relevant to Altanta, Georgia, USA.
Please read the whole thread in the future, I replied to someone who mentioned Poland. If you can't keep up with a simple thread of discussion then maybe slashdot is too complicated for you. And btw, the price of 1gb of data per month is $20 in the US through Verizon or ATT.
Because its expensive to run a lot of data over GSM links in every bus/tram in the city.
You don't need to send a lot of data. Maybe, 1kb for each authentication event? Assuming 2 million authentications per day (a lot) that comes out to 2 gigabytes of data per day. Last I was in Poland I think that cost around 20 zloty ( $10) to get on a prepaid plan. Hell, you can have it send 100 times as much data and you'll still end up paying less than the cost of maintaining the hardware itself.
There's a lot of reasons to not go with a GSM based approach but data cost is not one of them.
Yes, Apple is *gasp* a company and is driven by profits. When something makes up over 80% of your revenue (and increasing) you focus on that and not the remaining (and shrinking) slice.
Apple's focus on iOS and cute little phone apps has, for whatever reasons
Because that's actually making them money.
caused defect rates in their core desktop code to serious balloon.
Macs and OS X are Apple's side business, they haven't been core for a long long time.
You can see their code in advance and contacting someone directly vs having some headhunter google their resume off the internet and shotgun it at you might save you a few grand.
Which they'll in turn burn in lost productivity from all the time they spent looking through people's github pages.
Governments have already done the trail blazing for where it matters. There is nothing of worth on Mars, it's inside a gravity well with barely an atmosphere and no radiation protection. The money isn't in shipping a handful of people to a red rock for millions and burying them under twisty feet of rock.
The money is in all the easier to access and easier to reach natural resources in asteroids and outside the giant gravity wells. There may also be some money in cheaper local tourism. As the cost per person goes up, the total amount of money you can make goes down as your potential market shrinks much faster than the price grows.
These are all things which aren't even being commercially exploited. Blazing a trail into the jungle doesn't benefit anyone that much if you're starting from a dinky little 2 man outpost that the commercial routes won't reach for twenty years. Looks at colonization. The governments brazed a trail to the coasts but it was the commercial fur traders who really explored the inside of the US.
There is a difference between buying a TV to smash it up and buying a TV to watch it. Just like there is a difference between buying a TV and buying a plow to send to some third world nation. In all these cases the economy is stimulated as an object needs to be created however the long term impact of all these differs greatly.
Your bad assumption is that the vast majority of accidents require paying out the full liability and vehicle coverage. They don't.
Traffic statistics, btw, are 3.1 billion vehicle miles driven per year and around 10 million accidents. Or in other words one accident every 300k miles.
The world always walks on the back of great engineers, and unfortunately I don't see this trend ending any time soon.
Why should I praise someone who creates something that is of no value to me or of less value than what someone else made? If you make a device that costs me more time than it saves due to a useless UI how is that of any use to me? You can write the most brilliant code ever but unless that translates to a visible impact or feature for customers what's the advantage?
I have no idea how many travelers would actually use the projected HSR network in California, but judging from a quick look at the map it looks like the vast majority of the journeys on the network would be between stations within each metro area where the station to station journey times would be short enough to allow daily commutes.
That's not HSR, that's called local public transportation and it already exists. That has nothing to do with HSR except that some of the HSR money would be diverted to improving local public transportation (ie: basically non-HSR trains). You don't need HSR to improve them and frankly without HSR you'd have a lot more money to devote to it.
Please stop switching arguments at random when it's pointed out that you said something idiotic.
Yes, but there is empirical data that suggests that high speed lines operate at close to 100% capacity in the morning and evening peak hours
You're makign the same logical fallacies as the blog author, you're assuming the Hyperloop is just a HSR train by a different name. It's not.
If I build a HSR from nowhere to nowhere then I won't get 100% capacity. If I build one across the US with no intermediate stops and it takes 30 straight hours to get somewhere I also won't get 100% capacity. Details matter and California's HSR is pretty much borderline useless in most of those details..
You're also not counting the fact that how long it takes to get somewhere dictates what peak hours means. Or in other words if you need to get somewhere by noon and it takes three hours to get there the peak hours will be 6 to 9. If it takes 30 minutes to get there then the peak hours can be from 6 to 11:30. So basically the Hyperloop can have half the capacity and still get as many people there by noon as HSR with no one having to wake up any earlier.
More to the point, the proposed HSR will be slower and about as expensive as flying so we can use airplane numbers. There's only 6 million flying between SF and LA per year. Let's assume half fly during a 4 hour per day block for commuting (2 morning, 2 evening) during 250 days per year. That gives you around 3000 people/hour at peak both ways and that's rather ludicrous since HSR won't get all of them anyway.
So claiming California's HSR will run at 100% during peak is downright hilarious imho. On the other hand the Hyperloop probably would be at 100% capacity because it's better than flying (rather than just slightly worse or about comparable) so people who normally wouldn't commute suddenly will.
The maps Musk released show the system travelling from the fringes of the Bay Area to the fringes of the LA area, because it's hard/expensive/impossible to get land for the straightaways you'd need for the project within densely built up urban areas.
Most people in the Bay Area do not live or work in SF. In fact San Jose which is the south end of the Bay Area alone has almost 1 million people (and growing) compared to 800k in San Francisco (and not growing).
Not coincidentally, must of the construction and expense that adds to HSR's very high price tag will come in SF and LA urban areas, since that system goes from downtown to downtown.
That's because HSR needs to go to downtown to be even remotely competitive with airlines and thus viable. It's so much slower than an airplane it just can't be remotely as fast unless you add in all the commuting to station/airport time. The Hyperloop does not. It is as fast as an airplane if not faster. That's from station/airport to station/airport. So it can be just as fast an an airplane destination to destination despite not going to downtown since airports also don't go directly to downtown. If people care later on it can be expanded but initially it can compete on price for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Read your own bloody link in the future.
It's $350k in income per year, not in net worth. There is a massive difference between the two. A house counts for the latter and not the former.
According to this article you need around $8 million in net worth to be part of the 1%:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/4880064...
So no, a house doesn't cut it.
None of those cases indicate the startup in question was actually successful. Being sold for 10 million when you owe investors 20 million isn't success. Presumably the common stock was worth nothing because the sale was basically a liquidation. The investors signed off on it in exchange for getting whatever money did come in but they didn't make any money on the deal since the worth of the company minus investments was in fact negative.
Just because a startup doesn't go bankrupt doesn't mean it was successful.
Copyright ownership does not mean something cannot be distributed or given away or copied, how would anyone publish anything then? Copyright ownership is merely legal control over how something is copied and distributed and the owner get's to define how people can and cannot copy their work. For example, the copyright owner of a book would allows a printer to create copies of their copyrighted content in each book that they print. There's limits on the control with things like fair use and the first sale doctrine.
A licence is merely a legal statement defining exactly how a given piece of copyrighted work can be copied. As the copyright owner, and only as the owner ultimately, you can licence the work in any way you want. The license may be fairly complex such is the case with the GPL however it does not need to be such as with the MIT license. A work with no copyright owner is in the public domain and can be distributed and copied and modified with no limits.
Licences differ from public domain in that the copyright owner can use the legal system to claim copyright infringement on those who break the licence. A work in the public domain has no copyright owner and as a result no one can take you to court over it or enforce any licence on the work (in theory, in practice money trumps everything).
At around $50+/hour of driving taxis aren't exactly cheap. Existing car shares are around a forth of the price so quiet clearly the whole "human driver" part is rather expensive.
First of all, cost is a big driver of user behavior. As a result anything which makes something cheaper will likely change user behavior. I suspect that a big part of the cost of existing car sharing programs is the logistics of keeping a lot of cars near where people live. If you could instead keep most in cheap industrial areas and move around to meet demand on their own then you'd save a lot of cost. That in turn can be passed onto customers.
Convenience is another big driver, if you make something more convenient then people are more likely to use it. A self-driving car would remove most of the differences in convenience between owning a car and something like ZipCar. The car would be at your door so no need to walk to the closest car sharing location. The car can return itself so you can actually make one way trips. They'll also be a lower chance of no cars being available since they can come to you from further away rather than being limited to just the nearby locations.
How do consumers trust that Uber is acting responsibly with this ability to set prices?
Why does that matter? If the price is too high then don't use Uber. If you don't like variability in price then don't use Uber. It's not a monopoly.
All cars have gears including the tesla.
The Tesla has a fixed single speed transmission so for all intents and purposes it has no gears.
I've lived in both places actually and NYC is in fact a much easier commute. Compared to NY the Bay Area doesn't have public transportation and SF's traffic is only marginally better.
Because most of Google's employees don't live in SF and commuting into SF is a giant cluster fuck. The same issue with moving people out of SF applies to moving people into SF.
Nice thinking, except that Wikipedia is not a company, especially not an american one.
Yes it is. It's owned by the Wikipedia Foundation which is a non-profit company registered under US law in California.
It's not some grand complicated mystery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Your inability to spend 10 seconds googling something isn't an argument, it's a statement about your own ignorance and laziness.
How making money requires allowing other people to limit sequels and what not that you do?
That's up to me to choose based on how much money they offer me, now isn't it? Why should I not be allowed to sell my right to make sequels and what I can do with my creations?
Yeah, I'd sure hate to be able to make money from my creations. What an awful system. How dare someone even think of giving me money for my hard earned work.
a) It's not a lot of data per link, but it is a lot of links. That 20 zloty plan is one link. Marta has 554 buses and 38 rail stations.
Since you can't do the math apparently I'll have to. $20 per bus per month comes out to under $150k per year to have GSM data everywhere. For comparison, the Breeze Card program had a $100 million budget and Marta has a yearly budget of $400 million.
So no it's not a lot of links or a lot of data or a lot of cost although it is sad how people can't do simple math and research anymore.
b) You have supplied no dataon the reliability of that link
What part of "There's a lot of reasons to not go with a GSM based approach but data cost is not one of them" is hard for you to read?
c) Pricing in Poland is not particularly relevant to Altanta, Georgia, USA.
Please read the whole thread in the future, I replied to someone who mentioned Poland. If you can't keep up with a simple thread of discussion then maybe slashdot is too complicated for you. And btw, the price of 1gb of data per month is $20 in the US through Verizon or ATT.
Because its expensive to run a lot of data over GSM links in every bus/tram in the city.
You don't need to send a lot of data. Maybe, 1kb for each authentication event? Assuming 2 million authentications per day (a lot) that comes out to 2 gigabytes of data per day. Last I was in Poland I think that cost around 20 zloty ( $10) to get on a prepaid plan. Hell, you can have it send 100 times as much data and you'll still end up paying less than the cost of maintaining the hardware itself.
There's a lot of reasons to not go with a GSM based approach but data cost is not one of them.
Apparently there's a bigger housing shortage in SV, otherwise most of these techies wouldn't move to SF.
Yes they would. You move to SF because you want to live in the hip fun place.
No but when you're buying ads on the side of the bus that is exactly who you think about.
Yes, Apple is *gasp* a company and is driven by profits. When something makes up over 80% of your revenue (and increasing) you focus on that and not the remaining (and shrinking) slice.
Apple's focus on iOS and cute little phone apps has, for whatever reasons
Because that's actually making them money.
caused defect rates in their core desktop code to serious balloon.
Macs and OS X are Apple's side business, they haven't been core for a long long time.
You can see their code in advance and contacting someone directly vs having some headhunter google their resume off the internet and shotgun it at you might save you a few grand.
Which they'll in turn burn in lost productivity from all the time they spent looking through people's github pages.
Governments have already done the trail blazing for where it matters. There is nothing of worth on Mars, it's inside a gravity well with barely an atmosphere and no radiation protection. The money isn't in shipping a handful of people to a red rock for millions and burying them under twisty feet of rock.
The money is in all the easier to access and easier to reach natural resources in asteroids and outside the giant gravity wells. There may also be some money in cheaper local tourism. As the cost per person goes up, the total amount of money you can make goes down as your potential market shrinks much faster than the price grows.
These are all things which aren't even being commercially exploited. Blazing a trail into the jungle doesn't benefit anyone that much if you're starting from a dinky little 2 man outpost that the commercial routes won't reach for twenty years. Looks at colonization. The governments brazed a trail to the coasts but it was the commercial fur traders who really explored the inside of the US.
There is a difference between buying a TV to smash it up and buying a TV to watch it. Just like there is a difference between buying a TV and buying a plow to send to some third world nation. In all these cases the economy is stimulated as an object needs to be created however the long term impact of all these differs greatly.
Your bad assumption is that the vast majority of accidents require paying out the full liability and vehicle coverage. They don't.
Traffic statistics, btw, are 3.1 billion vehicle miles driven per year and around 10 million accidents. Or in other words one accident every 300k miles.
The world always walks on the back of great engineers, and unfortunately I don't see this trend ending any time soon.
Why should I praise someone who creates something that is of no value to me or of less value than what someone else made? If you make a device that costs me more time than it saves due to a useless UI how is that of any use to me? You can write the most brilliant code ever but unless that translates to a visible impact or feature for customers what's the advantage?
I have no idea how many travelers would actually use the projected HSR network in California, but judging from a quick look at the map it looks like the vast majority of the journeys on the network would be between stations within each metro area where the station to station journey times would be short enough to allow daily commutes.
That's not HSR, that's called local public transportation and it already exists. That has nothing to do with HSR except that some of the HSR money would be diverted to improving local public transportation (ie: basically non-HSR trains). You don't need HSR to improve them and frankly without HSR you'd have a lot more money to devote to it.
Please stop switching arguments at random when it's pointed out that you said something idiotic.
Yes, but there is empirical data that suggests that high speed lines operate at close to 100% capacity in the morning and evening peak hours
You're makign the same logical fallacies as the blog author, you're assuming the Hyperloop is just a HSR train by a different name. It's not.
If I build a HSR from nowhere to nowhere then I won't get 100% capacity. If I build one across the US with no intermediate stops and it takes 30 straight hours to get somewhere I also won't get 100% capacity. Details matter and California's HSR is pretty much borderline useless in most of those details..
You're also not counting the fact that how long it takes to get somewhere dictates what peak hours means. Or in other words if you need to get somewhere by noon and it takes three hours to get there the peak hours will be 6 to 9. If it takes 30 minutes to get there then the peak hours can be from 6 to 11:30. So basically the Hyperloop can have half the capacity and still get as many people there by noon as HSR with no one having to wake up any earlier.
More to the point, the proposed HSR will be slower and about as expensive as flying so we can use airplane numbers. There's only 6 million flying between SF and LA per year. Let's assume half fly during a 4 hour per day block for commuting (2 morning, 2 evening) during 250 days per year. That gives you around 3000 people/hour at peak both ways and that's rather ludicrous since HSR won't get all of them anyway.
So claiming California's HSR will run at 100% during peak is downright hilarious imho. On the other hand the Hyperloop probably would be at 100% capacity because it's better than flying (rather than just slightly worse or about comparable) so people who normally wouldn't commute suddenly will.
The maps Musk released show the system travelling from the fringes of the Bay Area to the fringes of the LA area, because it's hard/expensive/impossible to get land for the straightaways you'd need for the project within densely built up urban areas.
Most people in the Bay Area do not live or work in SF. In fact San Jose which is the south end of the Bay Area alone has almost 1 million people (and growing) compared to 800k in San Francisco (and not growing).
Not coincidentally, must of the construction and expense that adds to HSR's very high price tag will come in SF and LA urban areas, since that system goes from downtown to downtown.
That's because HSR needs to go to downtown to be even remotely competitive with airlines and thus viable. It's so much slower than an airplane it just can't be remotely as fast unless you add in all the commuting to station/airport time. The Hyperloop does not. It is as fast as an airplane if not faster. That's from station/airport to station/airport. So it can be just as fast an an airplane destination to destination despite not going to downtown since airports also don't go directly to downtown. If people care later on it can be expanded but initially it can compete on price for example.