Point he's trying to make is that anyone can pick it up and play. His friends could practice because they could hook it up, play at home, bring it to his house and play there. I fall squarely within the Slashdot crowd, and lots of people here don't talk about end-user friendliness. It's plausible for someone to learn about networking to play doom. But you know what? You barber isn't gonna go ahead and learn networking so they can play one game they tried once (mind you, this is 1997ish. They may not have even had a computer) But what they might do is pick up an N64 for their kid and learn how to play with them.
The vast majority of shares are in the hands of the few, sure. You forget, however, that shares aren't the thing a company survives on. They survive on selling goods and services. We have much more of a share, as a whole, than the few with literal power over their entity can even possibly have. We can opt to not buy products from X or Y company because of their abuse of us. We can opt out of our government and join or start another. We are the power that keeps the wheels turning. Without us, who is a company going to sell to? Who is a government going to govern? The point I've been going for it that nobody can ever take our power away, as we, ourselves, are the power. As a population, we can choose who and what get it, and who loses it. What do Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Crassus, and anyone else who has amassed a massive amount of power or wealth have in common? They have backing. Granted, some of them basically or literally enslaved people. Do you think for one minute, though, that any of them could stand up to everyone they fucked over at once? They would be ripped to shreds (especially Crassus:-P) if more than half the people they were abusing decided to do something and worked together. We could exercise the same level of power against any corporation or government that decided to fuck with us.
You know what, while I'm on this topic, here's a little rant. You know all these tiny pieces of fiction that people write about government and corporations fucking us? They neglect to take into account the fact that one entity literally can't enslave everyone on the face of the Earth. It can't happen because of the differences between people. Our diversity is actually by far our best asset. Due to our ability to separate ourselves into groups, we are supreme over a "single organism"-type of structure like a government or corporation. We come together to form a group when it benefits us, but there also needs to be separation. It's an "equal and opposite reaction" for us to split after a group doesn't benefit us anymore. You think the first people had an ability to stick together 100% of the time? If we did, there would've been no "Neandertals-vs-CroMagnons" period (Yes, i realize they're not our species. I don't give a fuck, it's a good analogy and they were damn close). Likewise, there would've been an Egyptian empire that lasted forever. There would've never been a rebellion against Roman rule. Judaism would've never split into Christianity. Pakistan and India would be one unified nation. Nobody here can control the entire Afghan population, just like nobody in Afghanistan can completely control us. They can send ripples of influence, but they can't flood us. This is very much like the way no one corporation can completely dominate a market and stay that way forever. It's why government doesn't work when it's tried across the globe. It's why cliques form in high schools across the nation then have a fallout when Jenny says something about Sue, and two new cliques form. Do you get this picture yet? I sure hope so, because I'm done.
Actually, by "middle ground", I'm not talking about just getting into the "bad" category. It's more of a separate thing that allows both to exist. It's called "the people". The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better. I'm not advocating for not being hard on them both. Be hard on BOTH of them, rather than the one you choose to fight for. There's no reason for us to allow either to become too powerful. We gave both the government and corporations power with the intent to wield it and benefit ourselves. Everyone in this country either sides with government or corporations, which is completely countering the population's goals. Why not side with the people? Why not side with the only entity that can outright control everything we've created? This doesn't fall into the category of any adjective other than smart. If we didn't, and if we don't in the future, we're going to be fucked over by things we made to help us.
You don't let the two strongest types of entities that we've ever created work together. That's bad for the people.
There's nothing abstract about this. In fact, what you're talking about is really the point I was trying to get across to begin with. I hope I made that much, much clearer this time around.
In all reality, people need to see the middle ground. people like you (the parent) slam the corporations, and advocate for government, which will try to consolidate power. People like the grandparent say corporations will be good themselves, when in reality, they will consolidate power. You're both morons on your respective counts. The entire way we've even survived as a country is by playing the two interests against each other in our (the people's) favor. How else do you think people keep these massive entities under control?
Considering it's for a separate model of car completely, yes. The loan is for them to ramp up production of the Model S; the profit was on Roadster sales.
Your idea of their target demographic is convoluted. Most driving is within 30 miles of someone's home, let alone 300 miles. If ~25% of accidents are within a mile of home, how many miles you think are driven in that area? I'd venture to say about ~25%. Maybe ~20% at the lowest. That leaves a question: how many people actually go somewhere 300 miles away and DRIVE? Have you ever done that? It's sadistic to do alone, and I can only imagine what a family roadtrip would mean.
First, a huge portion of driving is done within 2 miles of one's home. The road trip is nearly extinct. That invalidates the majority of your argument.
Second, nobody needs to install metering stations to begin with. Charge ten dollars for a charge. For christ's sake, electricity is really fucking cheap compared to gasoline. I mean, you need 53 kWh to charge a Tesla. A kWh, at it's highest, is 16.73 (in Hawaii, most expensive in nation on average) That leads to 8.86 per charge. Now, anywhere else the profit margin is alot higher. Also, it's cheaper than a gas charge. That makes it a win-win.
Yeah, this is why the grandpost is wrong. Cities always start first with new infrastructure, just because they are able to. They have more people, so if the new product gets.5% market share across the country, they have a higher actual number of people. All it takes is the foot, and it'll go miles.
Someone actually can create a company based on the premise that they do research and license to other people. It's somewhat novel, but it would work. Research company gets 1/3 of gross income or something like that as part of their licensing deal. All they need to to is get their product type in demand, and stay ahead of the curve.
Maybe you should consider that most advances in industry (every industry start at the luxury level before they make it down to everyone before you open your mouth next time. You think gas vehicles started out as something everyone can buy? How about computers? Printers? I can list fucking EVERY consumer product, and EVERY ONE started as a luxury item beofre someone decided to make it cheaper because it sold well at the high price.
The whole idea is that evolution is random and patterns only emerge when those random mutations lead to statistically significant implications for survival and reproduction. So it's misleading to say anything "evolved for a reason" because evolution isn't an intelligent process -- it doesn't do things because of reasons.
I'm going to pick at your choice of words. Evolution isn't quite random. Anything that has an effect of the organism is either going to succeed or die out. Anything that doesn't have an effect is just gonna stick around. This is due to the environmental factors. These factors are not random (it's not random whether there will be bears in a given area), thus the direction that things will evolve in won't be random (as it's not random that a wolf can outrun a bear). The only thing truly random about evolution is the starting point. (GCGCT, or AGGCB, it's hard to say how that first molecule came together). The way it changes is also random, with random changes to small amounts of DNA over time. After that, there's not too much random to go around in terms of where an individual mutation ends up. It's really a chaotic process leading to an orderly one. I'd consider it along the lines of a fractal.
Slashdot Mirror
Many neglect to realize what their target audience is. /. isn't filled with marketing and business majors, after all...
Point he's trying to make is that anyone can pick it up and play. His friends could practice because they could hook it up, play at home, bring it to his house and play there. I fall squarely within the Slashdot crowd, and lots of people here don't talk about end-user friendliness. It's plausible for someone to learn about networking to play doom. But you know what? You barber isn't gonna go ahead and learn networking so they can play one game they tried once (mind you, this is 1997ish. They may not have even had a computer) But what they might do is pick up an N64 for their kid and learn how to play with them.
I find it ironic that the 'net is good with words and not with number, as numbers are what it's based on.
The vast majority of shares are in the hands of the few, sure. You forget, however, that shares aren't the thing a company survives on. They survive on selling goods and services. We have much more of a share, as a whole, than the few with literal power over their entity can even possibly have. We can opt to not buy products from X or Y company because of their abuse of us. We can opt out of our government and join or start another. We are the power that keeps the wheels turning. Without us, who is a company going to sell to? Who is a government going to govern? The point I've been going for it that nobody can ever take our power away, as we, ourselves, are the power. As a population, we can choose who and what get it, and who loses it. What do Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Crassus, and anyone else who has amassed a massive amount of power or wealth have in common? They have backing. Granted, some of them basically or literally enslaved people. Do you think for one minute, though, that any of them could stand up to everyone they fucked over at once? They would be ripped to shreds (especially Crassus :-P) if more than half the people they were abusing decided to do something and worked together. We could exercise the same level of power against any corporation or government that decided to fuck with us.
You know what, while I'm on this topic, here's a little rant. You know all these tiny pieces of fiction that people write about government and corporations fucking us? They neglect to take into account the fact that one entity literally can't enslave everyone on the face of the Earth. It can't happen because of the differences between people. Our diversity is actually by far our best asset. Due to our ability to separate ourselves into groups, we are supreme over a "single organism"-type of structure like a government or corporation. We come together to form a group when it benefits us, but there also needs to be separation. It's an "equal and opposite reaction" for us to split after a group doesn't benefit us anymore. You think the first people had an ability to stick together 100% of the time? If we did, there would've been no "Neandertals-vs-CroMagnons" period (Yes, i realize they're not our species. I don't give a fuck, it's a good analogy and they were damn close). Likewise, there would've been an Egyptian empire that lasted forever. There would've never been a rebellion against Roman rule. Judaism would've never split into Christianity. Pakistan and India would be one unified nation. Nobody here can control the entire Afghan population, just like nobody in Afghanistan can completely control us. They can send ripples of influence, but they can't flood us. This is very much like the way no one corporation can completely dominate a market and stay that way forever. It's why government doesn't work when it's tried across the globe. It's why cliques form in high schools across the nation then have a fallout when Jenny says something about Sue, and two new cliques form. Do you get this picture yet? I sure hope so, because I'm done.
Actually, by "middle ground", I'm not talking about just getting into the "bad" category. It's more of a separate thing that allows both to exist. It's called "the people". The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better. I'm not advocating for not being hard on them both. Be hard on BOTH of them, rather than the one you choose to fight for. There's no reason for us to allow either to become too powerful. We gave both the government and corporations power with the intent to wield it and benefit ourselves. Everyone in this country either sides with government or corporations, which is completely countering the population's goals. Why not side with the people? Why not side with the only entity that can outright control everything we've created? This doesn't fall into the category of any adjective other than smart. If we didn't, and if we don't in the future, we're going to be fucked over by things we made to help us.
You don't let the two strongest types of entities that we've ever created work together. That's bad for the people.
There's nothing abstract about this. In fact, what you're talking about is really the point I was trying to get across to begin with. I hope I made that much, much clearer this time around.
Maybe this all happened because people got stupid and decided to stop playing the companies against the government for our gain?
What if the class action is a federal suit?
In all reality, people need to see the middle ground. people like you (the parent) slam the corporations, and advocate for government, which will try to consolidate power. People like the grandparent say corporations will be good themselves, when in reality, they will consolidate power. You're both morons on your respective counts. The entire way we've even survived as a country is by playing the two interests against each other in our (the people's) favor. How else do you think people keep these massive entities under control?
It works when people aren't fuckin dumbasses. Who actually knows about AT&T's ToS? I'd guarantee it's less than 1% of customers.
....which can mean they have a higher level of technology installed in most areas....
I believe Jihadist is the correct term.
I think there might have been a puzzle in there to see how complicated a setup you could've destroyed them all in, but that's the general idea.
That 465 million dollar loan can lead to billions in business for 50+ years. Would you think that's worse than giving a dying company billions?
Considering it's for a separate model of car completely, yes. The loan is for them to ramp up production of the Model S; the profit was on Roadster sales.
I'm wary about jumping 30 years to the future on one purchase.
Assuming profits stay at a steady level.
Your idea of their target demographic is convoluted. Most driving is within 30 miles of someone's home, let alone 300 miles. If ~25% of accidents are within a mile of home, how many miles you think are driven in that area? I'd venture to say about ~25%. Maybe ~20% at the lowest. That leaves a question: how many people actually go somewhere 300 miles away and DRIVE? Have you ever done that? It's sadistic to do alone, and I can only imagine what a family roadtrip would mean.
First, a huge portion of driving is done within 2 miles of one's home. The road trip is nearly extinct. That invalidates the majority of your argument.
Second, nobody needs to install metering stations to begin with. Charge ten dollars for a charge. For christ's sake, electricity is really fucking cheap compared to gasoline. I mean, you need 53 kWh to charge a Tesla. A kWh, at it's highest, is 16.73 (in Hawaii, most expensive in nation on average) That leads to 8.86 per charge. Now, anywhere else the profit margin is alot higher. Also, it's cheaper than a gas charge. That makes it a win-win.
Yeah, this is why the grandpost is wrong. Cities always start first with new infrastructure, just because they are able to. They have more people, so if the new product gets .5% market share across the country, they have a higher actual number of people. All it takes is the foot, and it'll go miles.
Someone actually can create a company based on the premise that they do research and license to other people. It's somewhat novel, but it would work. Research company gets 1/3 of gross income or something like that as part of their licensing deal. All they need to to is get their product type in demand, and stay ahead of the curve.
Maybe you should consider that most advances in industry (every industry start at the luxury level before they make it down to everyone before you open your mouth next time. You think gas vehicles started out as something everyone can buy? How about computers? Printers? I can list fucking EVERY consumer product, and EVERY ONE started as a luxury item beofre someone decided to make it cheaper because it sold well at the high price.
He probably never connected the dots.
I believe alot of the words are included in their own (OS X) dictionary, not only making them censors, but enormous hypocrites.
Maybe it's here to see if we can get smart enough to not destroy ourselves before we destroy ourselves...
The whole idea is that evolution is random and patterns only emerge when those random mutations lead to statistically significant implications for survival and reproduction. So it's misleading to say anything "evolved for a reason" because evolution isn't an intelligent process -- it doesn't do things because of reasons.
I'm going to pick at your choice of words. Evolution isn't quite random. Anything that has an effect of the organism is either going to succeed or die out. Anything that doesn't have an effect is just gonna stick around. This is due to the environmental factors. These factors are not random (it's not random whether there will be bears in a given area), thus the direction that things will evolve in won't be random (as it's not random that a wolf can outrun a bear). The only thing truly random about evolution is the starting point. (GCGCT, or AGGCB, it's hard to say how that first molecule came together). The way it changes is also random, with random changes to small amounts of DNA over time. After that, there's not too much random to go around in terms of where an individual mutation ends up. It's really a chaotic process leading to an orderly one. I'd consider it along the lines of a fractal.