Whenever two established giants in different industries require collaboration to bring a new product to market, there is always going to be power struggles and dick-waving. In this case, it is exacerbated by Google's eagerness to go right into full-blown autonomous cars instead of the incremental approach that the car companies want. This make sense since all of the responsibility of any issues that arise in this technology will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the auto makers. In any event, I think Tesla would make a better partner since they're a bolder company who isn't afraid to jump in with both feet.
This is hilarious. You cite the "free market" when referring to a copyrighted work. The very copyright that protects this work is a government-granted monopoly allowing entities to create artificial scarcity. In a free market, there would be no government interference, the monopoly would not exist, and we wouldn't have all of the nonsense we're currently debating. I'm not saying abolishing copyrights is the way to go, but copyrighted works do NOT fall under the umbrella of the free market.
I used to be extremely excited for fuel cell vehicles about 10 years ago. Then I learned that they don't perform well in cold weather, are very dangerous during impact, hydrogen is not easy or cheap to make, and most importantly of all, you still have to go out of your way every so many miles to find a damn station to fill up. Compare that to electric cars which require less maintenance, are safer, work better in the cold (albeit with slightly degraded performance), already have established channels for generating and distributing energy, and allow me to leave my garage fully recharged every day. At this point, electric cars have a big competitive edge and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
People always come back with this argument, which is why I qualified it with IPO. And could you or someone else please explain how later public offerings don't dilute the ownership of the company amongst the existing shareholders?
If only there was an organization who could work with SpaceX towards this goal. This organization would have to be goal-driven rather than profit-driven. Years ago, that would have been NASA, but we had to gut their funding because they're not as essential as blowing up people of other religions on the other side of the planet nor do NASA's endeavors bring back a big enough return on investment.
The whole thing is really a shame. If we hadn't already gone to the moon and attempted to do so today, the mission would get no support. Everyone would be asking why we were doing it and what would we be getting for our money. Looking back, those missions created over 400,000 jobs in engineering and created advances in propulsion, computer software and hardware, materials and mechanical engineering, insulation, navigation, etc. The discoveries made during this period set up the U.S. for decades of prosperity greater than anyone imagined before the mission. Now we're stuck in a society where nobody wants to do anything unless there will be some kind of return almost immediately. Keep challenging people's notions of our limits and fighting against the mindsets of small-minded short-term investors, Elon. You've already proven them wrong with Tesla Motors and if anyone can get us to Mars at this point, it's you.
You hit the nail on the head. An IPO is a one-time fundraiser that requires permanently surrendering control of your company to a bunch of greedy, short-sighted psychopaths who are only concerned with doing whatever it takes to pump up the stock price, even if it means sabotaging the long-term viability of the company. It's beyond time to start exploring new methods of investing.
May I suggest the new name to be the Washington Indians? Their mascot could be a man from India in a business suit wearing a Native American headdress.
At this point, I think it's safe to say that we're in another tech bubble. But at least we can have fun seeing which bubble bursts first (HFT, medical, student loan, or tech).
As a shareholder, I fully welcome this move. This shows that Tesla is so confident that they will continue to dominate the electric car industry that they don't even have to stop others from trying. That kind of confidence goes a long way to securing business deals with companies who might otherwise hesitate to jump into bed with a company that is still relatively new in a market that is only just starting to emerge.
I can confirm this. I had FIOS (75 MBps) and there were points where I couldn't even get YouTube videos to load at 240p. I found many complaints of other FIOS users, especially in the Northeast, with similar issues. Some users claimed that they could restore the speed by using a VPN or a different DNS server. I felt that I shouldn't have to do that, so I accepted an offer to switch to the other evil ISP empire. My new 25 MBps connection loads YouTube videos much faster than Verizon's 75 MBps connection.
After a public offering of new shares, what value does the stock market really add for that company? Sure, there are some things it helps with such as an approximate value that can be used for acquisitions, but once a company offers a set of shares on the market and collects the money from the buyer, those shares are essentially chips with the corporate logo to be bought and sold among gamblers in the world's biggest casino. At that point, those shares do little to create actual value in the real world.
If I am going to pay for a service or product, the company that provides that service or product had better officially support my platform. I realize Linux has a very small marketshare, but Netflix has already gotten their software to run on other flavors of Linux that run on phones, tablets, and game consoles. If they would just get it working for one or more major Linux distributions, then they would have themselves a new loyal customer. But I'm not going to give them money to run their software on an unsupported platform that could break at any point in a new software release.
Are you sure? Based on Apple's history, they sure don't seem to mind replacing huge parts of their infrastructure while completely deprecating the old:
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X
PowerPC to Intel
Carbon to Cocoa
32-bit to 64-bit
I'm not disagreeing with most of these transitions, but they sure don't mind having their application developers rewrite substantial portions of their applications because of the shiny. I wouldn't be surprised if Objective-C was no longer supported in five years.
Samsung and LG want curved TVs to become all the rage because the only way to currently make them are using OLEDs and they own many of the patents for OLED screens. With that said, the Samsung OLED television got a glowing review from Consumer Reports - basically the only downside to the TV was the cost which is sure to come down in the future.
I've always been curious about full disk encryption but I've never taken the time to set it up. Regardless of whether or not this was precipitated by a three-letter agency or not, this makes me want to use TrueCrypt even more. The next time I format my drives, TrueCrypt 7.1a is going on there (assuming I can verify it's signature).
As for everyone wondering about the status of the project, couldn't the project resume development off of U.S. soil? Between software patents and government spooks, the U.S. is definitely becoming a more hostile environment for software developers.
This makes perfect sense - you no longer need the portions of your brain that store your hopes and dreams, so those portions can transition to finding ways to push your kids to be good at something so that you can live vicariously through them!
The only thing that will change in 2016 is which person has a bunch of rich hands up their asshole controlling what comes out of their mouth. Everything else will remain exactly the same.
If you don't tell anyone what town you're from, they can't do what you're suggesting.
That's not to say that the information can't be found, just that it makes it much harder. So we're in agreement that this whole thing is a matter of convenience.
I'm also not making any arguments directly related to this new law, I'm simply fleshing out the reason that this sort of law has come about. People in general are ignorant of how criminal justice actually works, especially on the side of convicted persons. If people did not automatically hold a person's past transgressions against them, this would all be moot; however, there is a strong assumption in Western societies of "once a criminal, forever a criminal," particularly in the U.S. and this assumption is a large driving force of the vicious cycle of criminal reoffense.
I agree that people tend to be too harsh on people with a criminal past, but I still do not feel that this law is justified (and I realize that you haven't commited to claiming it is justified either, although you seem to be somewhat sympathetic with its intentions). This is a matter of the consequences of people's perception of past transgressions translating to future transgressions. While I agree that those assumptions may often be unfair, I shouldn't lose my ability to search publicly available data and form my own opinion on what that person has done and whether or not they have changed their ways. Besides, I would hope that the ability to find people's wrongdoings more easily would act as a bit of a deterrent the next time a person considers morally-questionable behavior. Rather than making a law that prevents people from finding publicly available information, I believe we should address the problem by using statistics and success stories to educate the public about criminal reform rather than take away people's ability to learn about their past.
That seems like a valid point, but I'd like to point out one important distinction: it is not a right to be forgotten, but a privilege. In your example, a suspicious member of your new town could place a phone call to a friend in your old town, have them look up the public records, and provide that information to the people of your new town, which is very similar to what Google currently does. Since that behavior is completely legal, then your "right" to be forgotten is more of a privilege that is currently being degraded by technology. But forcing someone to censor their speech, which most people consider to be an inalienable right, so that some other people may enjoy a privilege just doesn't seem fair.
I consider myself to value privacy quite a bit but I really don't understand where this line of thinking comes from. Do you believe you have a right to be forgotten in real life? If so, how would you enforce it? If not, then why do you believe the online world should behave differently from the real world?
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever two established giants in different industries require collaboration to bring a new product to market, there is always going to be power struggles and dick-waving. In this case, it is exacerbated by Google's eagerness to go right into full-blown autonomous cars instead of the incremental approach that the car companies want. This make sense since all of the responsibility of any issues that arise in this technology will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the auto makers. In any event, I think Tesla would make a better partner since they're a bolder company who isn't afraid to jump in with both feet.
This is hilarious. You cite the "free market" when referring to a copyrighted work. The very copyright that protects this work is a government-granted monopoly allowing entities to create artificial scarcity. In a free market, there would be no government interference, the monopoly would not exist, and we wouldn't have all of the nonsense we're currently debating. I'm not saying abolishing copyrights is the way to go, but copyrighted works do NOT fall under the umbrella of the free market.
I used to be extremely excited for fuel cell vehicles about 10 years ago. Then I learned that they don't perform well in cold weather, are very dangerous during impact, hydrogen is not easy or cheap to make, and most importantly of all, you still have to go out of your way every so many miles to find a damn station to fill up. Compare that to electric cars which require less maintenance, are safer, work better in the cold (albeit with slightly degraded performance), already have established channels for generating and distributing energy, and allow me to leave my garage fully recharged every day. At this point, electric cars have a big competitive edge and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
People always come back with this argument, which is why I qualified it with IPO. And could you or someone else please explain how later public offerings don't dilute the ownership of the company amongst the existing shareholders?
If only there was an organization who could work with SpaceX towards this goal. This organization would have to be goal-driven rather than profit-driven. Years ago, that would have been NASA, but we had to gut their funding because they're not as essential as blowing up people of other religions on the other side of the planet nor do NASA's endeavors bring back a big enough return on investment.
The whole thing is really a shame. If we hadn't already gone to the moon and attempted to do so today, the mission would get no support. Everyone would be asking why we were doing it and what would we be getting for our money. Looking back, those missions created over 400,000 jobs in engineering and created advances in propulsion, computer software and hardware, materials and mechanical engineering, insulation, navigation, etc. The discoveries made during this period set up the U.S. for decades of prosperity greater than anyone imagined before the mission. Now we're stuck in a society where nobody wants to do anything unless there will be some kind of return almost immediately. Keep challenging people's notions of our limits and fighting against the mindsets of small-minded short-term investors, Elon. You've already proven them wrong with Tesla Motors and if anyone can get us to Mars at this point, it's you.
You hit the nail on the head. An IPO is a one-time fundraiser that requires permanently surrendering control of your company to a bunch of greedy, short-sighted psychopaths who are only concerned with doing whatever it takes to pump up the stock price, even if it means sabotaging the long-term viability of the company. It's beyond time to start exploring new methods of investing.
May I suggest the new name to be the Washington Indians? Their mascot could be a man from India in a business suit wearing a Native American headdress.
At this point, I think it's safe to say that we're in another tech bubble. But at least we can have fun seeing which bubble bursts first (HFT, medical, student loan, or tech).
As a shareholder, I fully welcome this move. This shows that Tesla is so confident that they will continue to dominate the electric car industry that they don't even have to stop others from trying. That kind of confidence goes a long way to securing business deals with companies who might otherwise hesitate to jump into bed with a company that is still relatively new in a market that is only just starting to emerge.
Where have you been? Everything is a matter of national security!
Now they just need to get a FISA warrant rubber-stamped or use parallel construction to make sure that the evidence is admissable.
I can confirm this. I had FIOS (75 MBps) and there were points where I couldn't even get YouTube videos to load at 240p. I found many complaints of other FIOS users, especially in the Northeast, with similar issues. Some users claimed that they could restore the speed by using a VPN or a different DNS server. I felt that I shouldn't have to do that, so I accepted an offer to switch to the other evil ISP empire. My new 25 MBps connection loads YouTube videos much faster than Verizon's 75 MBps connection.
After a public offering of new shares, what value does the stock market really add for that company? Sure, there are some things it helps with such as an approximate value that can be used for acquisitions, but once a company offers a set of shares on the market and collects the money from the buyer, those shares are essentially chips with the corporate logo to be bought and sold among gamblers in the world's biggest casino. At that point, those shares do little to create actual value in the real world.
If I am going to pay for a service or product, the company that provides that service or product had better officially support my platform. I realize Linux has a very small marketshare, but Netflix has already gotten their software to run on other flavors of Linux that run on phones, tablets, and game consoles. If they would just get it working for one or more major Linux distributions, then they would have themselves a new loyal customer. But I'm not going to give them money to run their software on an unsupported platform that could break at any point in a new software release.
Are you sure? Based on Apple's history, they sure don't seem to mind replacing huge parts of their infrastructure while completely deprecating the old:
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X
PowerPC to Intel
Carbon to Cocoa
32-bit to 64-bit
I'm not disagreeing with most of these transitions, but they sure don't mind having their application developers rewrite substantial portions of their applications because of the shiny. I wouldn't be surprised if Objective-C was no longer supported in five years.
Because they are finally admitting that Microsoft has superior UI design and they are trying to catch up.
Samsung and LG want curved TVs to become all the rage because the only way to currently make them are using OLEDs and they own many of the patents for OLED screens. With that said, the Samsung OLED television got a glowing review from Consumer Reports - basically the only downside to the TV was the cost which is sure to come down in the future.
I've always been curious about full disk encryption but I've never taken the time to set it up. Regardless of whether or not this was precipitated by a three-letter agency or not, this makes me want to use TrueCrypt even more. The next time I format my drives, TrueCrypt 7.1a is going on there (assuming I can verify it's signature).
As for everyone wondering about the status of the project, couldn't the project resume development off of U.S. soil? Between software patents and government spooks, the U.S. is definitely becoming a more hostile environment for software developers.
This makes perfect sense - you no longer need the portions of your brain that store your hopes and dreams, so those portions can transition to finding ways to push your kids to be good at something so that you can live vicariously through them!
Sure, you'll have to rewire your house every few years, but that's a small price to pay for a faster and more portable house!
Nobody is arguing that iPads are used by executives - the argument is that iPads are no good for people who actually have to do work.
The only thing that will change in 2016 is which person has a bunch of rich hands up their asshole controlling what comes out of their mouth. Everything else will remain exactly the same.
That's not to say that the information can't be found, just that it makes it much harder. So we're in agreement that this whole thing is a matter of convenience.
I agree that people tend to be too harsh on people with a criminal past, but I still do not feel that this law is justified (and I realize that you haven't commited to claiming it is justified either, although you seem to be somewhat sympathetic with its intentions). This is a matter of the consequences of people's perception of past transgressions translating to future transgressions. While I agree that those assumptions may often be unfair, I shouldn't lose my ability to search publicly available data and form my own opinion on what that person has done and whether or not they have changed their ways. Besides, I would hope that the ability to find people's wrongdoings more easily would act as a bit of a deterrent the next time a person considers morally-questionable behavior. Rather than making a law that prevents people from finding publicly available information, I believe we should address the problem by using statistics and success stories to educate the public about criminal reform rather than take away people's ability to learn about their past.
That seems like a valid point, but I'd like to point out one important distinction: it is not a right to be forgotten, but a privilege. In your example, a suspicious member of your new town could place a phone call to a friend in your old town, have them look up the public records, and provide that information to the people of your new town, which is very similar to what Google currently does. Since that behavior is completely legal, then your "right" to be forgotten is more of a privilege that is currently being degraded by technology. But forcing someone to censor their speech, which most people consider to be an inalienable right, so that some other people may enjoy a privilege just doesn't seem fair.
I consider myself to value privacy quite a bit but I really don't understand where this line of thinking comes from. Do you believe you have a right to be forgotten in real life? If so, how would you enforce it? If not, then why do you believe the online world should behave differently from the real world?