> $35k buyers expect more. For all the flash and pomp, the Model 3 is clearly not "more", at least for the base model.
Right, but remember that *this is still an electric car*. That's the big thing going on here. An electric car accelerates very quickly, and costs very little in energy, which should act to directly ameliorate the cost. Combine it with virtue signaling and a more measured choice to support renewable technologies and you have a car that is not trying to compete with your 6k-under-sticker Fusion example, but is in competition with the Nissan Leaf (~30k) and the Chevy Volt (~26k). Can it add 5k to 9k of value to those? Probably.
The average price for a new car in 2013 was $31,252. That's below 35k, and it should be pointed out that this is the average price PAID for a new car- not sticker prices or whatever.
So yea, lots of people can buy 35,000 dollar cars. One thing I can't find is the MEDIAN price paid- cars are probably on some bell curve, but it has a long tail. If your neighbor drops 100k on a GTR, that's going to push the average up. Even if the median is a decent bit lower, you still end up with plenty of Americans that can pay 35k for a new car- especially an electric one.
I think there's no such thing as a good ad, ever. But I do get that there's some people who don't mind ads as long as they don't try to control your computer, install malware, break your browser, etc.
One problem here seems to be that of legal liability. Forbes famously went through some (trivial-to-get-around) efforts to stop people with adblockers from visiting. Then, once people whitelisted them, they served malware. Was Forbes liable for this? Probably not. The "third party" thing with a nest of licensing lets people point the blame down to some fly-by-night situation. The end result is that the website you visit isn't legally liable for the malware, and, ultimately, no one really is. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Some legal changes are needed to make this make sense. Possibly not the first order- for instance, maybe Forbes isn't liable. But there should be at least one and at most two parties that SHOULD be liable for serving malware, and this should be easily discoverable. I'm not sure how this would be written, but it seems like such a law could absolutely exist, or be enforced if it already does. Why would you ever trust ads if, in practice, no one is responsible for the malicious code that they serve? Even if you are willing to view an ad, you'd be a fool to do so in a world where every ad is a roll of the dice to determine if you lose your bank account, personal data, etc- all with no one responsible. That's absurd.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to write words in a product called Word. Yes you should. Word allows you to write words.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to command and conquer in a product called Command & Conquer. Yes you should. You have to command in order to conquer.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to move in a product called automobile. You don't.
The reason you shouldn't have to press buttons to block ads in a product called Ad Block is because installing it is the user interaction. It's a single purpose dude- you put it in, the ads go away. It's great if you can get in there and tweak (maybe you want some ads, maybe there's other things you want to block, maybe you want to change the source block lists), but, by default, if you install Ad Block, it should do that. It shouldn't then require you to go fiddle in some constantly moving configuration screen to turn off ads. uBlock Origin has this functionality out of the gate- it is the superior product.
> I was very specifically talking about disabling the whitelist Right, disabling the whitelist blocks ads. You have to press buttons if you want to block the ads, that was my point.
Installing uBlock Origin is a one time operation. More importantly, it is worth the switch because then you won't be supporting a company that makes money based on ads. If something maintained by one principled man, who doesn't take donations, is the same functionality as a thing that ends up in court because it selectively allows ads (and recently PUSHED its own charity advertisements over the ones on the page!), then obviously you should use the lightweight thing that doesn't have all these wacko actions behind the scenes.
uBlock Origin blocks ads. You install it, and the ads are gone. Adblock Plus sometimes shows you ads (unless you turn that off), and sometimes advertises a charity (maybe there's an opt-out for that too), and... what's next, exactly?
Adblock Plus has a business model where you are the product. uBlock Origin does not. The choice is clear.
> The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.
Sure, but that goal needs a great deal of other societal changes. Its 100% unemployment if you have one guy operating the robots and everyone else dead, right? That's not what you meant, so you need a bunch of theoretical philosophy, legal, and economic advancements to keep up with your theoretical technological advancement.
You shouldn't have to press buttons to block ads in a product called ad block. Just grab uBlock Origin. That blocks the ads. There's no such thing as an acceptable ad.
I wanted a longer USB 3.0 cable for my external hard drive, so it could be located somewhere not absurd. Three cables later, I just gave up- one didn't work, the other two don't support USB 3.0 speeds. I feel I should be able to choose from a variety of materials, patterns, colors, and still have cables that work- but this is all nonsense. The problem is not just with Amazon, of course- that just makes it harder to return the non-working thing.
The poll asks if the "dark net" should be shut down. It's not clear if they defined the darknet properly or at all. Certainly the only parts of the darknet that get press are the bad parts, and equally certainly the internet would have to be profoundly changed to shut it down.
How many of the respondents think that "the darknet" is "the illegal part"? If the question is being heard as "Should the illegal parts of the internet be shut down", then of COURSE the answer is "yea, naturally, the law should be enforced by law enforcement".
Pinboard already offers some of what IFTTT does, and she even lists alternatives. The agreement looks like its pretty much a death sentence if you agree to it, as well.
That's simply a fantastic trashing of a silly move. Quoting the ruinous parts of their secretive agreement is just icing on the cake. Absolutely brutal.
> Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense... which scares the shit out of me.
You've always been in a world where this makes total sense. You just didn't want to believe it until now. That's fair- none of us really did- but it's better to have our eyes open so we can fix the problem than just pretending it's not real.
Not really, no. Because the paranoid guy was correct but we laughed at him. Now that we have real companies that are privacy minded raising this as a concern, we might actually see some action in this direction, and we might even see vendors stop locking free and open source software / firmware out of their chips for exactly this concern.
I think part of it depends on what you are doing with your Red Hats, and what the expectation is. If you are running a bunch of internal servers for computing tasks or network tasks, I think that many Linuxes have serious strengths there, and a cost benefit analysis is a pretty big deal. At my work, we've been married to Solaris, and any Linux we use would have to have the blessing and backing of an entity like Red Hat- and hopefully we'll be switched soon.
The Wii U screen controller is frankly a stupendously odd call. First, it should be pointed out the good: You can play games on it without being on the TV, and you can watch Netflix on it, etc. It has some of the features of a tablet, while being less expensive than them, and with much more graphics power. It also allows for innovative control methods and gives you two screens if a game needs them....and that's sort of the problem too. The Wii-U is a luxury item in the way that a Super NES wasn't- it's a lot more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. This means that it won't really have people caring about a halfassed tablet- they either have a real tablet, don't need that functionality, or something. The innovative control system means that if you have a great idea for a game that uses a tablet, you can put that out on the Wii-U- or you can find a way to make it not need a tablet, even at the cost of quality, and now you can release it on the Wii-U, PS4, Xbone, and PC. It's way too risky a play for anyone, certainly the number 2 or 3 guy in the field.
The naming is also a nightmare- it took years before most potential customers even understood that the almost identical-looking Wii-U was a WHOLE NEW CONSOLE, and not just an addon tablet to the Wii, and that's without considering that Wii and Wii-U are all truly terrible names.
Nintendo did ok with the Wii, but they also noticed that casual gamers are extraordinarily fickle and unpredictable. The Wii-U did a lot right by having real controllers supported well, but the risks they took just didn't play out, and it's probably the second least profitable venture of theirs, after the amazing Virtual Boy.
Seriously, Nintendo isn't playing by the Sony / Microsoft rules. If you buy a Wii-U, Nintendo makes a profit. If you buy a Wii-U game, Nintendo makes a bigger profit. If you buy two dozen Wii-U games, Nintendo makes a bigger profit still. An Xbone or a PS4 sale are both a LOSS for Microsoft or Sony (and if they aren't now, they were when they were new and selling most of their systems), and then they hope to catch up later with game sales.
Nintendo has made a profit on every generation- the only variable is how much.
So if AAA titles on Linux deliberately cut their Windows versions, this would be better for Linux? If Linux somehow did some shenanigans to be hard to run in a VM, this would somehow be better for Linux?
Get real. And get your language correct: Linux doesn't lack game XYZ. Game XYZ lacks a Linux version.
Slashdot Mirror
> I stopped giving a fuck about Red Crap
> I'm very happy with my current distro which isn't a Debian or a Debian derivative.
Calm down Gentoo, it's ok. You have a smooth face, and everyone loves you.
> $35k buyers expect more. For all the flash and pomp, the Model 3 is clearly not "more", at least for the base model.
Right, but remember that *this is still an electric car*. That's the big thing going on here. An electric car accelerates very quickly, and costs very little in energy, which should act to directly ameliorate the cost. Combine it with virtue signaling and a more measured choice to support renewable technologies and you have a car that is not trying to compete with your 6k-under-sticker Fusion example, but is in competition with the Nissan Leaf (~30k) and the Chevy Volt (~26k). Can it add 5k to 9k of value to those? Probably.
The average price for a new car in 2013 was $31,252. That's below 35k, and it should be pointed out that this is the average price PAID for a new car- not sticker prices or whatever.
So yea, lots of people can buy 35,000 dollar cars. One thing I can't find is the MEDIAN price paid- cars are probably on some bell curve, but it has a long tail. If your neighbor drops 100k on a GTR, that's going to push the average up. Even if the median is a decent bit lower, you still end up with plenty of Americans that can pay 35k for a new car- especially an electric one.
No, websites have the right to TRY.
I think there's no such thing as a good ad, ever. But I do get that there's some people who don't mind ads as long as they don't try to control your computer, install malware, break your browser, etc.
One problem here seems to be that of legal liability. Forbes famously went through some (trivial-to-get-around) efforts to stop people with adblockers from visiting. Then, once people whitelisted them, they served malware. Was Forbes liable for this? Probably not. The "third party" thing with a nest of licensing lets people point the blame down to some fly-by-night situation. The end result is that the website you visit isn't legally liable for the malware, and, ultimately, no one really is. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Some legal changes are needed to make this make sense. Possibly not the first order- for instance, maybe Forbes isn't liable. But there should be at least one and at most two parties that SHOULD be liable for serving malware, and this should be easily discoverable. I'm not sure how this would be written, but it seems like such a law could absolutely exist, or be enforced if it already does. Why would you ever trust ads if, in practice, no one is responsible for the malicious code that they serve? Even if you are willing to view an ad, you'd be a fool to do so in a world where every ad is a roll of the dice to determine if you lose your bank account, personal data, etc- all with no one responsible. That's absurd.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to write words in a product called Word.
Yes you should. Word allows you to write words.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to command and conquer in a product called Command & Conquer.
Yes you should. You have to command in order to conquer.
> You shouldn't have to press buttons to move in a product called automobile.
You don't.
The reason you shouldn't have to press buttons to block ads in a product called Ad Block is because installing it is the user interaction. It's a single purpose dude- you put it in, the ads go away. It's great if you can get in there and tweak (maybe you want some ads, maybe there's other things you want to block, maybe you want to change the source block lists), but, by default, if you install Ad Block, it should do that. It shouldn't then require you to go fiddle in some constantly moving configuration screen to turn off ads. uBlock Origin has this functionality out of the gate- it is the superior product.
> I was very specifically talking about disabling the whitelist
Right, disabling the whitelist blocks ads. You have to press buttons if you want to block the ads, that was my point.
Installing uBlock Origin is a one time operation. More importantly, it is worth the switch because then you won't be supporting a company that makes money based on ads. If something maintained by one principled man, who doesn't take donations, is the same functionality as a thing that ends up in court because it selectively allows ads (and recently PUSHED its own charity advertisements over the ones on the page!), then obviously you should use the lightweight thing that doesn't have all these wacko actions behind the scenes.
uBlock Origin blocks ads. You install it, and the ads are gone. Adblock Plus sometimes shows you ads (unless you turn that off), and sometimes advertises a charity (maybe there's an opt-out for that too), and... what's next, exactly?
Adblock Plus has a business model where you are the product. uBlock Origin does not. The choice is clear.
> The goal of any advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.
Sure, but that goal needs a great deal of other societal changes. Its 100% unemployment if you have one guy operating the robots and everyone else dead, right? That's not what you meant, so you need a bunch of theoretical philosophy, legal, and economic advancements to keep up with your theoretical technological advancement.
You shouldn't have to press buttons to block ads in a product called ad block. Just grab uBlock Origin. That blocks the ads. There's no such thing as an acceptable ad.
I wanted a longer USB 3.0 cable for my external hard drive, so it could be located somewhere not absurd. Three cables later, I just gave up- one didn't work, the other two don't support USB 3.0 speeds. I feel I should be able to choose from a variety of materials, patterns, colors, and still have cables that work- but this is all nonsense. The problem is not just with Amazon, of course- that just makes it harder to return the non-working thing.
I mean, are we sure there are ANY consensual copies of Windows 10?
The poll asks if the "dark net" should be shut down. It's not clear if they defined the darknet properly or at all. Certainly the only parts of the darknet that get press are the bad parts, and equally certainly the internet would have to be profoundly changed to shut it down.
How many of the respondents think that "the darknet" is "the illegal part"? If the question is being heard as "Should the illegal parts of the internet be shut down", then of COURSE the answer is "yea, naturally, the law should be enforced by law enforcement".
Pinboard already offers some of what IFTTT does, and she even lists alternatives. The agreement looks like its pretty much a death sentence if you agree to it, as well.
That's simply a fantastic trashing of a silly move. Quoting the ruinous parts of their secretive agreement is just icing on the cake. Absolutely brutal.
> Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense ... which scares the shit out of me.
You've always been in a world where this makes total sense. You just didn't want to believe it until now. That's fair- none of us really did- but it's better to have our eyes open so we can fix the problem than just pretending it's not real.
Not really, no. Because the paranoid guy was correct but we laughed at him. Now that we have real companies that are privacy minded raising this as a concern, we might actually see some action in this direction, and we might even see vendors stop locking free and open source software / firmware out of their chips for exactly this concern.
> Put simply, what the hell sort of problem do you have with some consistency in global law?
I'll bet you anything you're not ok with the second amendment, and would want to eliminate it.
People are different.
Cultures are different.
I think part of it depends on what you are doing with your Red Hats, and what the expectation is. If you are running a bunch of internal servers for computing tasks or network tasks, I think that many Linuxes have serious strengths there, and a cost benefit analysis is a pretty big deal. At my work, we've been married to Solaris, and any Linux we use would have to have the blessing and backing of an entity like Red Hat- and hopefully we'll be switched soon.
I shit talk Microsoft all the time, never seen one of my posts go away.
Why? Debian doesn't source from Red Hat. You're saying that because Red Hat does it, EVERYONE has to? Come on!
"Save versus rods, staves, wands!"
The Wii U screen controller is frankly a stupendously odd call. First, it should be pointed out the good: You can play games on it without being on the TV, and you can watch Netflix on it, etc. It has some of the features of a tablet, while being less expensive than them, and with much more graphics power. It also allows for innovative control methods and gives you two screens if a game needs them. ...and that's sort of the problem too. The Wii-U is a luxury item in the way that a Super NES wasn't- it's a lot more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. This means that it won't really have people caring about a halfassed tablet- they either have a real tablet, don't need that functionality, or something. The innovative control system means that if you have a great idea for a game that uses a tablet, you can put that out on the Wii-U- or you can find a way to make it not need a tablet, even at the cost of quality, and now you can release it on the Wii-U, PS4, Xbone, and PC. It's way too risky a play for anyone, certainly the number 2 or 3 guy in the field.
The naming is also a nightmare- it took years before most potential customers even understood that the almost identical-looking Wii-U was a WHOLE NEW CONSOLE, and not just an addon tablet to the Wii, and that's without considering that Wii and Wii-U are all truly terrible names.
Nintendo did ok with the Wii, but they also noticed that casual gamers are extraordinarily fickle and unpredictable. The Wii-U did a lot right by having real controllers supported well, but the risks they took just didn't play out, and it's probably the second least profitable venture of theirs, after the amazing Virtual Boy.
Seriously, Nintendo isn't playing by the Sony / Microsoft rules. If you buy a Wii-U, Nintendo makes a profit. If you buy a Wii-U game, Nintendo makes a bigger profit. If you buy two dozen Wii-U games, Nintendo makes a bigger profit still. An Xbone or a PS4 sale are both a LOSS for Microsoft or Sony (and if they aren't now, they were when they were new and selling most of their systems), and then they hope to catch up later with game sales.
Nintendo has made a profit on every generation- the only variable is how much.
So if AAA titles on Linux deliberately cut their Windows versions, this would be better for Linux? If Linux somehow did some shenanigans to be hard to run in a VM, this would somehow be better for Linux?
Get real. And get your language correct: Linux doesn't lack game XYZ. Game XYZ lacks a Linux version.
That's like complaining about tanks because your garage doesn't have room for a tank.