I don't think the industry would actually save the money, they'd need most, if not all the employees that the dealers have but the manufacturer has different incentives for selling the product.
Direct sales doesn't mean there aren't retail locations, merely that they are run by the manufacturer. Consider Apple's retail outlets.
With dealers they have an incentive to sell you the car they already have on the lot (and hence tend to get models with options & packages as they cost more), with a manufacturer they can actually get you exactly what you want
I don't think its too relevant for the average person since the publicity you're giving to the candidate is negligible. On the other hand celebrities and broadcasters / news agencies offer pretty significant publicity.
Personally it never actually notified me of anything, I had forgotten it existed until recently when I accidentally clicked on it and it mentioned I had a delivery. Unfortunately this could have been useful, e.g. calendar (still nothing good exists on the desktop imo), flights, traffic, etc.
I'd think that boredom would be the biggest problem, past a threshold of driver assist where the user begins to rely heavily on it and their attention to the task at hand (e.g. driving) decreases at which point we need full automation.
I think the biggest issue is that these guys need their earliest graduates to be very successful, unfortunately for that to happen they need to attract smart motivated people; these students could probably attend a proper school so they also have to be willing to gamble with their futures. Realistically I can only really imagine starting a new education system is for part-time students (e.g. want to change careers thus time makes a difference) or by recruiting students who would otherwise be unable to attend school.
Which is why I made the point about Apple doing research on its competitors, they collect a variety of information from many sources and aggregate it. As long as that information is not internal unreleased Microsoft data (e.g. finances) it would not trigger insider trading.
Wrong, insider trading requires inside knowledge from the company that other investors do not have. The information the employee of company A does not have access to information from B (unless they have some sharing agreement I suppose), ergo they do not have inside information.
Google isn't making a car, iirc they've said they're going to license the technology. On the other hand Apple does seem to be seriously interested in make its own cars and is hiring people. The information isn't that interesting either, the most likely use would be applications to help people, but invariably car makers feel that the vehicles are appliances and that they should be able to charge customers for information about their own vehicle.
Ultimately however Porsche's strategy doesn't work, if their customers use Android having CarPlay isn't a vehicle feature and they'll eventually be forced to support Android Auto or a third party (e.g. Pioneer) will make one.
I'm not sure this would qualify as insider trading since they aren't betting on their own sites. This would be more akin to Apple employees investing in Microsoft based on their internal market research about the Surface.
Being an asshole and personally attacking the submitter doesn't help improve code. Its much more likely to alienate people and give them reasons to fuck you over in the future.
Further, if these people were to act this way in person they'd eventually get the shit kicked out of them.
Actually it sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand anti-trust laws.
One of the restriction of anti-trust law is that a company with a monopoly in one market, from abusing its power to enter another market. If Amazon is considered to have an effective monopoly in online retail (and for most people, it probably does), then this might be argued as using its dominance in online sales to compete in the streaming market.
correctly referring to Uber & al with the correct term: bandit taxi dispatchers. These are not ride sharing services (the car wasn't going that way already), they are dispatchers for quasi-contractor taxi drivers.
By Atwood's logic, no one needs to learn to write at all. We have computer dictation for it. Similarly no one needs to understand math either as we have computers & calculators.
I think the logic is actually backwards funnily enough, Google services are what bring people to Android - they aren't choosing Android and having the services come along for the ride.
Apple does this to a far greater extent, and even prohibits competitors from being made available (Android has a setting enabling the user to install arbitrary software, and more open store rules). Plus Apple has been doing this for longer (think itunes + ipods where they actually did have an effective monopoly which Android does not have in the US.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the industry would actually save the money, they'd need most, if not all the employees that the dealers have but the manufacturer has different incentives for selling the product.
Direct sales doesn't mean there aren't retail locations, merely that they are run by the manufacturer. Consider Apple's retail outlets.
With dealers they have an incentive to sell you the car they already have on the lot (and hence tend to get models with options & packages as they cost more), with a manufacturer they can actually get you exactly what you want
I don't think its too relevant for the average person since the publicity you're giving to the candidate is negligible. On the other hand celebrities and broadcasters / news agencies offer pretty significant publicity.
Maybe America just needs to reform its post-secondary school system, the rest of the world doesn't cost nearly as much.
Seems like they could have added a notification to the tray when they want to trigger it, perhaps with a 'always do this' option.
Point a geiger counter at your smoke detector sometime, and maybe watch Pandora's Promise to educate yourself on the reality of nuclear power.
Given a paper isn't the entire publication and they're for use in education wouldn't fair use apply anyway?
Then they'd never rate any new cars since manufacturers iterate the design every year.
I'd say its more of a symptom of arguing on the internet - everyone gets dumber.
Minimally they should provide software to track it. and help users avoid enabling features they aren't licensed for.
Well, clearly the CEO of a drone company is going to try to convince everyone drones are the next big thing.
Wait a minute, you're still using a virus scanner and still have the gall to complain about technology? :)
Personally it never actually notified me of anything, I had forgotten it existed until recently when I accidentally clicked on it and it mentioned I had a delivery. Unfortunately this could have been useful, e.g. calendar (still nothing good exists on the desktop imo), flights, traffic, etc.
I'd think that boredom would be the biggest problem, past a threshold of driver assist where the user begins to rely heavily on it and their attention to the task at hand (e.g. driving) decreases at which point we need full automation.
I think the biggest issue is that these guys need their earliest graduates to be very successful, unfortunately for that to happen they need to attract smart motivated people; these students could probably attend a proper school so they also have to be willing to gamble with their futures. Realistically I can only really imagine starting a new education system is for part-time students (e.g. want to change careers thus time makes a difference) or by recruiting students who would otherwise be unable to attend school.
Which is why I made the point about Apple doing research on its competitors, they collect a variety of information from many sources and aggregate it. As long as that information is not internal unreleased Microsoft data (e.g. finances) it would not trigger insider trading.
Wrong, insider trading requires inside knowledge from the company that other investors do not have. The information the employee of company A does not have access to information from B (unless they have some sharing agreement I suppose), ergo they do not have inside information.
Google isn't making a car, iirc they've said they're going to license the technology. On the other hand Apple does seem to be seriously interested in make its own cars and is hiring people. The information isn't that interesting either, the most likely use would be applications to help people, but invariably car makers feel that the vehicles are appliances and that they should be able to charge customers for information about their own vehicle.
Ultimately however Porsche's strategy doesn't work, if their customers use Android having CarPlay isn't a vehicle feature and they'll eventually be forced to support Android Auto or a third party (e.g. Pioneer) will make one.
I'm not sure this would qualify as insider trading since they aren't betting on their own sites. This would be more akin to Apple employees investing in Microsoft based on their internal market research about the Surface.
Being an asshole and personally attacking the submitter doesn't help improve code. Its much more likely to alienate people and give them reasons to fuck you over in the future.
Further, if these people were to act this way in person they'd eventually get the shit kicked out of them.
Actually it sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand anti-trust laws.
One of the restriction of anti-trust law is that a company with a monopoly in one market, from abusing its power to enter another market. If Amazon is considered to have an effective monopoly in online retail (and for most people, it probably does), then this might be argued as using its dominance in online sales to compete in the streaming market.
AFAIK Google allows 3rd party payment vendors thus Amazon could simply use its own account. Chromecast I believe is pretty much open to everyone?
correctly referring to Uber & al with the correct term: bandit taxi dispatchers. These are not ride sharing services (the car wasn't going that way already), they are dispatchers for quasi-contractor taxi drivers.
By Atwood's logic, no one needs to learn to write at all. We have computer dictation for it. Similarly no one needs to understand math either as we have computers & calculators.
I think the logic is actually backwards funnily enough, Google services are what bring people to Android - they aren't choosing Android and having the services come along for the ride.
Apple does this to a far greater extent, and even prohibits competitors from being made available (Android has a setting enabling the user to install arbitrary software, and more open store rules). Plus Apple has been doing this for longer (think itunes + ipods where they actually did have an effective monopoly which Android does not have in the US.)