Seriously, they were throwing bombs at the police, on top of the gunfire, during the pursuit if the news is right on that count. That's clearly grounds for giving up your rights to a nonviolent arrest - you're actively trying to kill people!
They're there because they're required, and because they allow companies to deny responsibility. Kids aren't any more stupid in the US because labels are everywhere, they don't read them anyway.
You're probably right about the video card issues. Areas in WoW with lots of players used to lag big time when I played, and it wasn't from the connection. Lots of players didn't even mean millions, it was in the hundred or so range that it started slowing down.
Honestly, people expect this from Russia. They're a corrupt shithole, and everyone knows it. France doing this, though, is a bit farther from the status quo.
My argument still compares Tesla to Benz. They're the first viable product for the luxury segment, enabled by technological advancement, and are the obvious predecessor to a viable mass market option. The initial argument is less detailed, and doesn't go into why I think Benz and Tesla are similar, but it's the same argument - just at a different depth.
The comparison of incandescent to CFL was just to emphasize that even a simple invention takes time to mature, and that process of maturation never stops - even when there's something that works for the majority of users. Since the ICE automobile had a viable mass market usage early on, it took many years for the technology to not only overcome the original hurdles to marketability, but also the hurdles created by that gradual improvement. One that's brought up all the time is the range of an ICE car - it's a substantial amount larger than an electric vehicle, but that wasn't always the case. A Model T got 13 to 21 MPG, which gave it a range of 130 to 210 miles. On the high end, it's comparable to some relatively low mileage modern cars, but nearly no production electric vehicle today has such a low range (except in the case of fleet cars that are designed to operate in cities), and they can definitely attain such a range at the top speed of the Model T, which was 45mph, or much higher. Hell, I get 25mpg cruising in my sports car doing 80+ mph - that's clearly a huge improvement on what the old technologies allowed.
I don't think the gas car is going away anytime soon, especially not by government mandate, but technology in the electric segment is advancing at a much more rapid pace than the traditional ICE segment. At this rate, it's inevitable that they will surpass the ICE car in marketability - some relatively small improvements in battery capacity and charge time are enough to swing it from a niche product to mass market, just the way an improvement in manufacturing process (and thus cost) swung the ICE car from a niche luxury product into something everyone could own. It doesn't even need to be those improvements either - it could be a manufacturing process, or it could be some unforeseen integrated electronics that make it into a must-have car, or a cheap, high efficiency solar cell they can put on the roof to extend the range. It could come from just about anywhere, but these machines are closer to the cusp of wide adoption than they have ever been.
Getting the key from Apple isn't really "technically interceptible" anyway. The problem, from their end, is likely that they need to subpoena the information from Apple (both past messages and the key for future use), rather than intercept it easily.
The relative stagnation of battery technology and the relative simplicity of the ICE. The first rechargeable battery didn't even exist until 1859, and the first lithium-ion batteries didn't hit the wider market until 1991. It's clear that batteries before the lithium ion weren't quite up to the task of propelling a large piece of machinery - other options were either too heavy or didn't hold enough of a charge for the weight and/or volume to compete with gasoline, an established high energy density medium. In addition, any rechargeable battery type requires complex electronics to charge and discharge safely, which wasn't simple or inexpensive to implement before transistors became commonplace, and quite a few technologies themselves had flaws that are fatal for automobile use. NiMH has a high self-discharge rate, lead acid is has low energy to weight and energy to volume ratios, and on and on.
Consider another invention - the light bulb. That took more than 75 years from invention to become practical, and it's an extraordinarily simple device - a glass-enclosed vacuum with a filament and two leads on the base. Even after that much improvement, it still took another 30 years or so to move from carbonized bamboo to tungsten, and another 10 for an inert gas to be used in the bulb, and another 15 to frost the inside of the bulb, then another 35 for the spiral CFL, and another 30 years or so for that to become popular for home use. That's a massive improvement process over time, and to expect relatively primitive technologies to always be on the same level of practicality is unrealistic. Some discoveries are made, or a device is invented, and it's immediately practical, while others are never practical for one reason or another. Hydrogen fuel cells may not be practical for the next 300 years because there may not be a physical way to create one that doesn't require platinum or another rare metal, but a set of discoveries that range from replacing platinum with carbon in a certain configuration to an entirely different method of creating the fuel cell might make it practical overnight.
In the case of the electric car, it's clear that it's been a gradual progression showing improvement. There's been slow, steady improvements in every facet of the concept's design and production, and it's currently very near the point where it turns the corner from niche to mass market. To discount the entire concept of an electric vehicle right now because it took a long time to develop to its' current status is not only giving up all of the progress that's been made because of an arbitrary and utterly irrelevant rationale, but downright dishonest about the way technology advances.
Consider that the first "automobile" using an internal combustion engine was actually built in 1807, not 1907, and you'll realize that we're on the cusp of having electric automobiles become common. The ICE, and the automobile, weren't even a little bit "new" when they were popularized and modernized, and it took many advancements in science and technology to make them commonplace. Those advancements included manufacturing processes, the tail end of the industrial revolution, realizing gasoline was a better fuel medium than coal dust, and many, many more. This is exactly what we're seeing with the electric car now - technology is just shy of the point where they can become mass market instead of niche luxury. Tesla is going to be seen as the Benz, and someone in about 10-15 years is going to come along and be the Ford.
Yeah, but isn't it far less economically viable to fly a plane all the way to China for maintenance instead of to somewhere in the middle of the US? You have to pay a pilot to fly all of those hours there and back, and you're wasting a whole lot of fuel to get there. When you do it in the US, you can have a normal flight to that particular airport, or nearby if it's not already a hub at a major airport, and a route back out from that airport to whichever route the plane is going on afterwords.
Part of what makes it "uneconomical" is that the infrastructure isn't there to cut costs. Imagine that the gas engine didn't exist, and you'd see that it takes quite a bit to develop the technology into something marketable to the average person. Don't forget, the Model T, considered the first affordable car, didn't roll off the assembly line until 1908, more than 20 years after Benz created the first "modern" automobile in 1885. Even then, from 1886 to 1893, Benz sold only about 25 of them. By 1900, they only sold 572. My guess is that there were plenty of people who said it couldn't be done, and that Benz was destined to fail because this thing couldn't be sold to average individuals, during that time.
Let's be real though - the government didn't just invest in Fisker. They also invested in Tesla, which is going strong, along with Ford and Nissan. Nissan delivered with the Leaf, while Ford's return on that investment is much less direct but involves a few different combustion engine technologies/improvements and manufacturing line improvements.
The truth is that this is the way investment works - some companies are successful, others are not. Whether the government should be investing at these different levels is what's really up for debate. It's hard to deny that the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program has generally been a success, whether you believe that the government should have been the ones to invest or not. This program was a $25 billion program, and they lost $200 million of it on a bad investment. Considering the risk profile was expected to be 30%, it would take Ford or Nissan to fail on their obligations under the loan in order for it to surpass that threshold.
You also need to understand that Fisker didn't get all of the money they were guaranteed. A loan guarantee means they'll definitely loan up to a limit, not that Fisker immediately received that amount. The real number they got is about $200 million, not $500 million. Losing $200 million on a total of $25 billion invested in relatively unproven (in the market) technologies isn't all that bad.
I'd say it probably is too. Even if they didn't need to hire someone else, the amount of time saved by having an efficient system developed instead of going through them by hand can be staggering.
Manufacturing something that's already been created is easy, developing it is the hard part. Imagine GM was given all of the engineering specs of a Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ / Toyota 86 - they could be producing it very quickly, even though it took tons of development over about 5 years to actually create the car.
Yeah, I don't think the judge realizes that computers don't work in the same way as physical good. You literally can't hand over the original, you have to copy and delete the original to "move" it.
For point #5, I'd imagine the reason is because of false negatives. False positives are less of an issue for a screening step, since they'd be verified anyway at a later stage, but a false negative would basically ensure the patient didn't get the proper treatment as quickly as they should.
Taking a guess, they'd make quite a bit less money. First, they'd have competition within months of introducing the new drugs - that would drive down prices, but Novartis couldn't reduce prices to the same level while remaining profitable because of costs incurred during development. Second, Novartis, and most of the other drug companies everyone knows, aren't specialists in manufacturing. They're specialists in development, which means they'd have to shift their whole organizational structure to become competitive on the manufacturing side or die. Not exactly an ideal scenario for anyone.
Real estate is expensive. People spend their whole lives trying to own a house, and once that mortgage is gone, they have a sizable nest egg. The house alone can push you half way to being a millionaire in my area of the country; a small, 2 bedroom townhouse is frequently upwards of $300k.
The difference is the connotation of slavery does include force and non-profitability. When someone says "slavery" in the U.S., the immediate image that comes to mind is the African-American slave on a plantation, not the Roman slave.
I know the hours of 3 Walmarts in my general area. There's 2 that are not, and one that is. One of each is in central NJ, and the third is in northern NJ.
Ok, so make an office suite that's free but doesn't support the format used in the majority of the business world. That won't cause the suite to be marginalized at all in favor of other free or paid suites that *just work* for the people who actually have a need to read documents created by Word users everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, they were throwing bombs at the police, on top of the gunfire, during the pursuit if the news is right on that count. That's clearly grounds for giving up your rights to a nonviolent arrest - you're actively trying to kill people!
They're there because they're required, and because they allow companies to deny responsibility. Kids aren't any more stupid in the US because labels are everywhere, they don't read them anyway.
You're probably right about the video card issues. Areas in WoW with lots of players used to lag big time when I played, and it wasn't from the connection. Lots of players didn't even mean millions, it was in the hundred or so range that it started slowing down.
Honestly, people expect this from Russia. They're a corrupt shithole, and everyone knows it. France doing this, though, is a bit farther from the status quo.
My argument still compares Tesla to Benz. They're the first viable product for the luxury segment, enabled by technological advancement, and are the obvious predecessor to a viable mass market option. The initial argument is less detailed, and doesn't go into why I think Benz and Tesla are similar, but it's the same argument - just at a different depth.
The comparison of incandescent to CFL was just to emphasize that even a simple invention takes time to mature, and that process of maturation never stops - even when there's something that works for the majority of users. Since the ICE automobile had a viable mass market usage early on, it took many years for the technology to not only overcome the original hurdles to marketability, but also the hurdles created by that gradual improvement. One that's brought up all the time is the range of an ICE car - it's a substantial amount larger than an electric vehicle, but that wasn't always the case. A Model T got 13 to 21 MPG, which gave it a range of 130 to 210 miles. On the high end, it's comparable to some relatively low mileage modern cars, but nearly no production electric vehicle today has such a low range (except in the case of fleet cars that are designed to operate in cities), and they can definitely attain such a range at the top speed of the Model T, which was 45mph, or much higher. Hell, I get 25mpg cruising in my sports car doing 80+ mph - that's clearly a huge improvement on what the old technologies allowed.
I don't think the gas car is going away anytime soon, especially not by government mandate, but technology in the electric segment is advancing at a much more rapid pace than the traditional ICE segment. At this rate, it's inevitable that they will surpass the ICE car in marketability - some relatively small improvements in battery capacity and charge time are enough to swing it from a niche product to mass market, just the way an improvement in manufacturing process (and thus cost) swung the ICE car from a niche luxury product into something everyone could own. It doesn't even need to be those improvements either - it could be a manufacturing process, or it could be some unforeseen integrated electronics that make it into a must-have car, or a cheap, high efficiency solar cell they can put on the roof to extend the range. It could come from just about anywhere, but these machines are closer to the cusp of wide adoption than they have ever been.
Getting the key from Apple isn't really "technically interceptible" anyway. The problem, from their end, is likely that they need to subpoena the information from Apple (both past messages and the key for future use), rather than intercept it easily.
The relative stagnation of battery technology and the relative simplicity of the ICE. The first rechargeable battery didn't even exist until 1859, and the first lithium-ion batteries didn't hit the wider market until 1991. It's clear that batteries before the lithium ion weren't quite up to the task of propelling a large piece of machinery - other options were either too heavy or didn't hold enough of a charge for the weight and/or volume to compete with gasoline, an established high energy density medium. In addition, any rechargeable battery type requires complex electronics to charge and discharge safely, which wasn't simple or inexpensive to implement before transistors became commonplace, and quite a few technologies themselves had flaws that are fatal for automobile use. NiMH has a high self-discharge rate, lead acid is has low energy to weight and energy to volume ratios, and on and on.
Consider another invention - the light bulb. That took more than 75 years from invention to become practical, and it's an extraordinarily simple device - a glass-enclosed vacuum with a filament and two leads on the base. Even after that much improvement, it still took another 30 years or so to move from carbonized bamboo to tungsten, and another 10 for an inert gas to be used in the bulb, and another 15 to frost the inside of the bulb, then another 35 for the spiral CFL, and another 30 years or so for that to become popular for home use. That's a massive improvement process over time, and to expect relatively primitive technologies to always be on the same level of practicality is unrealistic. Some discoveries are made, or a device is invented, and it's immediately practical, while others are never practical for one reason or another. Hydrogen fuel cells may not be practical for the next 300 years because there may not be a physical way to create one that doesn't require platinum or another rare metal, but a set of discoveries that range from replacing platinum with carbon in a certain configuration to an entirely different method of creating the fuel cell might make it practical overnight.
In the case of the electric car, it's clear that it's been a gradual progression showing improvement. There's been slow, steady improvements in every facet of the concept's design and production, and it's currently very near the point where it turns the corner from niche to mass market. To discount the entire concept of an electric vehicle right now because it took a long time to develop to its' current status is not only giving up all of the progress that's been made because of an arbitrary and utterly irrelevant rationale, but downright dishonest about the way technology advances.
Consider that the first "automobile" using an internal combustion engine was actually built in 1807, not 1907, and you'll realize that we're on the cusp of having electric automobiles become common. The ICE, and the automobile, weren't even a little bit "new" when they were popularized and modernized, and it took many advancements in science and technology to make them commonplace. Those advancements included manufacturing processes, the tail end of the industrial revolution, realizing gasoline was a better fuel medium than coal dust, and many, many more. This is exactly what we're seeing with the electric car now - technology is just shy of the point where they can become mass market instead of niche luxury. Tesla is going to be seen as the Benz, and someone in about 10-15 years is going to come along and be the Ford.
Yeah, but isn't it far less economically viable to fly a plane all the way to China for maintenance instead of to somewhere in the middle of the US? You have to pay a pilot to fly all of those hours there and back, and you're wasting a whole lot of fuel to get there. When you do it in the US, you can have a normal flight to that particular airport, or nearby if it's not already a hub at a major airport, and a route back out from that airport to whichever route the plane is going on afterwords.
Part of what makes it "uneconomical" is that the infrastructure isn't there to cut costs. Imagine that the gas engine didn't exist, and you'd see that it takes quite a bit to develop the technology into something marketable to the average person. Don't forget, the Model T, considered the first affordable car, didn't roll off the assembly line until 1908, more than 20 years after Benz created the first "modern" automobile in 1885. Even then, from 1886 to 1893, Benz sold only about 25 of them. By 1900, they only sold 572. My guess is that there were plenty of people who said it couldn't be done, and that Benz was destined to fail because this thing couldn't be sold to average individuals, during that time.
Let's be real though - the government didn't just invest in Fisker. They also invested in Tesla, which is going strong, along with Ford and Nissan. Nissan delivered with the Leaf, while Ford's return on that investment is much less direct but involves a few different combustion engine technologies/improvements and manufacturing line improvements.
The truth is that this is the way investment works - some companies are successful, others are not. Whether the government should be investing at these different levels is what's really up for debate. It's hard to deny that the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program has generally been a success, whether you believe that the government should have been the ones to invest or not. This program was a $25 billion program, and they lost $200 million of it on a bad investment. Considering the risk profile was expected to be 30%, it would take Ford or Nissan to fail on their obligations under the loan in order for it to surpass that threshold.
You also need to understand that Fisker didn't get all of the money they were guaranteed. A loan guarantee means they'll definitely loan up to a limit, not that Fisker immediately received that amount. The real number they got is about $200 million, not $500 million. Losing $200 million on a total of $25 billion invested in relatively unproven (in the market) technologies isn't all that bad.
Samoa Air isn't running 747's, as another poster mentioned. They have 3 planes, and they're all small prop planes.
There's nothing like a 19th-century fire brigade around anymore for these crooks, unfortunately.
I'd say it probably is too. Even if they didn't need to hire someone else, the amount of time saved by having an efficient system developed instead of going through them by hand can be staggering.
Manufacturing something that's already been created is easy, developing it is the hard part. Imagine GM was given all of the engineering specs of a Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ / Toyota 86 - they could be producing it very quickly, even though it took tons of development over about 5 years to actually create the car.
Yeah, I don't think the judge realizes that computers don't work in the same way as physical good. You literally can't hand over the original, you have to copy and delete the original to "move" it.
For point #5, I'd imagine the reason is because of false negatives. False positives are less of an issue for a screening step, since they'd be verified anyway at a later stage, but a false negative would basically ensure the patient didn't get the proper treatment as quickly as they should.
Taking a guess, they'd make quite a bit less money. First, they'd have competition within months of introducing the new drugs - that would drive down prices, but Novartis couldn't reduce prices to the same level while remaining profitable because of costs incurred during development. Second, Novartis, and most of the other drug companies everyone knows, aren't specialists in manufacturing. They're specialists in development, which means they'd have to shift their whole organizational structure to become competitive on the manufacturing side or die. Not exactly an ideal scenario for anyone.
Real estate is expensive. People spend their whole lives trying to own a house, and once that mortgage is gone, they have a sizable nest egg. The house alone can push you half way to being a millionaire in my area of the country; a small, 2 bedroom townhouse is frequently upwards of $300k.
I'd imagine the damage to the port would be the biggest problem. It'd be terrible not having a port for however long it took to reconstruct.
The difference is the connotation of slavery does include force and non-profitability. When someone says "slavery" in the U.S., the immediate image that comes to mind is the African-American slave on a plantation, not the Roman slave.
I know the hours of 3 Walmarts in my general area. There's 2 that are not, and one that is. One of each is in central NJ, and the third is in northern NJ.
Considering the Post Office operates independently, at least financially, it's definitely unreasonable.
Just pointing out, not every Walmart is open 24/7. I'd imagine they'd almost all have longer hours than the post office, though.
Ok, so make an office suite that's free but doesn't support the format used in the majority of the business world. That won't cause the suite to be marginalized at all in favor of other free or paid suites that *just work* for the people who actually have a need to read documents created by Word users everywhere.