Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 1) 388

I don't know what you mean. All base Model S's from sep. 2014 will ship with 3 out of 4 of the features you mention stock (cruise control, lane assist and self parking. Just look it up. Before that date I believe they all shipped with standard CC at least the very least). 0 cost.

The adaptive suspension is indeed extra. Just like the supercharger and the B.I.G. battery. These are the exceptions to the rule: effectively COSTLY extras that require either changes to a lot of other systems in the car, and are also very expensive by themselves and not cater to every common mortal needs. Adaptive suspension is something that will be very expensive for any car, forever and ever, no matter the brand. Only professional sports car effectively require it stock (and big trucks and buses I guess?). The large battery and the supercharger are effectively very, VERY bleeding edge technologies where Tesla pioneered, and I can accept that these have costs outside of the (already expensive) 100 grand.

Now you're gonna say I'm contradicting myself but whatever. I'm not in it for winning the argument, I'm on it because I actually care for the subject and my opinion is well formed. If you can change it with your argument, that must mean it's effectively a better opinion and I'll be glad I was here to listen to it.

Comment: Re:Options (Score 1) 388

I see your point, but I already considered all that beforehand. And I still can't understand it.

1) Not everybody wants, needs or can afford every feature.

It's open for debate, but my view is everybody DOES want every feature they can have. Society is known for wanting more than they need. Not everybody needs them indeed. And the cost factor I already addressed - base price covers most extra BoM, R&D and then some. The only problem associated to cost is company-side: they know certain base features will atract purchase, while some extras which 99% of people will add to certain models are just their way of saying "thanks dude, we knew you'd buy that yet we keep it off stock because FU"

Automakers can sell more cars if they offer them at a range of prices

Different ranges will cater to different markets (more revenue), but not necessarily more profit. That's their choice because they insist on a production line that is greedy enough to want all market segments. There are profitable ways to make a car and not have 20 variants of the same model (e.g. Ferrari, Hyundai, Land Rover target very narrow market scopes, some of them keep niche products for marketing purposes only). And finally, the market of a Model S is indeed different, but the point is they didn't follow a useless segmented extra-centric strategy and focused on user experience, satisfaction and overall quality with the added perk of performance and environment-friendly engine. There are brands already segmenting their electric offer, and the thing is you don't see them selling so well, at least on units shipped vs actual units sold.

People like to customize their vehicles because having something a little unique is valued.

No. Most cars aren't works of art, because art is one of the few "industries" where uniqueness is key. Save for some limited-edition, luxury cars, that point is moot. Extras rarely value a car, age and exclusivity do.

Bundling options keeps complexity down to a manageable level and if done right improves profits for the manufacturer.

Shipping full extras also keeps complexity to a manageable level, and if done right, greatly increases profit through brand recognition for having a complete car instead of one that is missing just that little extra.

If people start gravitating with their dollars towards that business model then that is what will happen.

Indeed, although I can see why most american would fear this business model, because it sounds oh-so-much like some weird form of communism applied to automotive. There is no reason to fear standardization here. Same for healthcare. Same for education. NOT the same for salary ceilings or price capping, because that is real communism. Embrace the fact that uniqueness you seek only applies in your neighborhood - someone, elsewhere will most likely have the exact same model and extras as you.

Comment: Re:Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 1) 388

You're confusing extras with customization, which are mainly aesthetic/ergonomic, or very niche tweaks that have wide degree of functionality across different end users. Unlike the memory foam of a seat or the color/paint of the exterior, features like ABS, cruise control, (well implemented) navigation or this specific human detection system will ALWAYS bring an advantage to the client as long as they can be turned on/off or outright ignored when not necessary (where applicable, as I wouldn't want that human detection off to have a toggle, but hey, I'm not a psychopath). And you also missed the main argument: you already pay full price (and then some) for those extras on the base price, even though you won't have them. Or do you think an M5 really costs double to make than a standard 5 series, and yet you still have to pay extra for improved headlights...

Comment: Another reason my first new car will be a Tesla (Score 4, Insightful) 388

No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry. It's not enough that most companies (especially luxury brands) already price their cars exorbitantly high, covering most R&D cost for technology it does not ship with as stock, yet they keep multiplying and over-complicating the extra packages in ways that if you want to add a single extra essential feature, you are pretty much forced to add 10 more (I guess Volvo guys forgot it this time but I bet they intended to do it). Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box" (as there is no stand per se, it must come in a box). And I'm not even talking about the fact it's an electric car.

Comment: Wait what? (Score 3, Funny) 441

by (#49779247) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results
Man, that first result BS is so deep, I'm even starting to believe it myself. They say dinossaurs were the big creatures from the genesis that got wiped out by Noah's flood. Then they go in to praise (what they deem as) good science for computers, electricity, junk food (yeah, they praised junk food. Honest.), and even space exploration. Then like a two-punch, they discredit all history-related kinds of sciences (even inventing new definitions of it), with arguments about them dealing with the past only with present facts, which makes some sense. But then I see this amazing quoted comparison...

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts." M. Lemonick, Parenthood, dino-style, Time, p. 48, January 8, 1996.

And I felt just like waking up from a priest/pastor's best wet dream (sans pre-pubescent kids). Lord Baby Jesus. Fucking politics. I think I laughed for like 2 minutes straight like a nutcase. Imagine voting for your favorite paleontologist for the best excavation. Creationists have THE best comparisons ever. Period.

Comment: That's not very British, is it? (Score 1) 121

With all the talk going on around UK's adult content policies, it was only natural to remove some social-centric articles which directly impact on public opinion. It just doesn't seem like the British thing to do, does it?

Well, I guess the way they are heading, any censorship is good censorship. Might as well make it a totalitarian state sooner better than later. How anyone in there is outraged that the EU is eye-browing such policies, that is the actual surprise... But then again, who would want freedom of speech, when freedom of speech can have such influence on these fascists jobs? It's understandable that state entities such as the parliament are editing wikipedia. Wouldn't you do anything it takes to keep your salary? Especially if such censorship action happens to coincide with your political view? Man I know I would. If my first name was Adolf and my last name rimmed with shittler I definitely would.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

You don't have to be an ermit and you still have a choice. I leave my work phone off when I'm off work. I silence my family phone while I'm at work. I chose to do that. I opt-in and provide my contact information (work or family's) disregarding the consequences, because I'm aware the consequences aren't as bad as the EU wants to paint them. You don't need to have 2 numbers, you need to have full awareness of what your single number is subject to. Then again I don't do anything wrong so I'm not afraid of mass-collection of data, but nobody should. What they should be afraid of is two things: that this data is not used anonymously, for statistical purposes (and that is where the EU should step in, regulating such usage); and that my freedom, or an organization's freedom to use data in an anonymous fashion, for their statistical purposes, with the data's source having opted-in for (or not opted-out against) it is just as important as my freedom to do my things privately. The measures the EU always wants to undertake involve preventing companies from asking users that right - for god's sake it's not like they are soliciting for sex! You give your number to your electrical company, you water company, your cable provider, and yet I don't see you pointing out that they use that number for marketing purposes constantly, repeatedly, unceasingly against your will. They will cold call you to death, yet you are afraid facebook will somehow become this off-shore big brother you are just too attached to willingly drop, like some overpowered form of cocaine which is just as addictive but 10 times worse for your health and 100 times more illegal. I'll give you the perfect example of a state that is much more afraid of facebook than the EU: Brazil. Brazil is one of the most corrupt states in the world, and the "citizen privacy protection" argument they used to move facebook's servers to their geographical domain is the biggest scam any politician could pull off. There is no people protection, there is only systematic corruption protection on that measure, or even worse - they want to have access to that privacy infringing data so they just force it out of HTTPS through the (then) feasible physical MITM hacks, and the corruption machine spins faster. The all-in argument was meant at the market scope of things, and no, I'm not saying some social policies such as universal health care are morally wrong, but they are morally unfeasible in a perfect capitalist state, much like meritocracy is unfeasible in a perfect communist state. And that is why markets crash.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

It's very nice to hear the system worked for you. But you have to accept that the whole environment lined up for a favorable conclusion. At quick glance I identify: you were not alone, as you ganged up a scientific group with relevant background on the matter at hand (even if students); you admittedly wasted a lot of effort for a single measure in your professional area; you are also Belgium-based, which does have an influence, be it by language barriers, or the simple fact that if a member of EU counsel needed an in-person technical assertion, it would be much easier to just holler a local.

And in my defense, I didn't say there was nothing we could do to influence such decisions - I said it was difficult. Again, your own argument assumes that difficulty. I'll give you my example: I'm a 26yo CS Researcher based in Portugal, and I vape. I have no background on vape research except articles I read for personal development, which tell me vaping is so much better than smoking. I did what I could, and what I knew was relevant for EU anti-vaping directives to not go ahead - I signed petitions that nobody cared about. The measures went ahead, and my country happened to be the first to ratify that directive last friday, under guise of tobacco product legislation. I time-shifted the entire Assembly of the Republic session to see what would happen. Portuguese people don't have much say on EU down streamed, government sanctioned projects of law, and even the represented parties have low to no opinion on it. The entire discussion point was a farce, focusing on the point of tobacco packaging imagery and completely disregarding the full scale of measures in that law bundle. It was approved unanimously. Nobody cared but the 100 vapers of my country who I predicted watched the plenary. What could I have done more? Switch my career to vape research maybe? I don't have that kind of motivation. I'd rather be arrested for buying vape products online (which is now prohibited here) than waste my life for another line of work. We also now pay 60 cents per ml of e-liquid bought nationally. And that wasn't even part of the EU directive: it was part of the annual government budget - a much larger package made into law which was highly influenced by the troika of lenders to my bankrupt country.

I'm not saying we are not to act. I am stating there are people for that. Elected officials are supposed to be those people, or the ones who connect the relevant parties so they can provide appropriate input (your specific case). But I know, for a fact, there are things worth investing your time, and others you might as well live with them. The privacy rights I lose to a US based company called Facebook are not one of them.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

Then please tell me how i can preemt pictures of me getting tagged on facebook as a non facebook user.

You do a google instead of using this comment section. If you don't have an account, it only links to a name, which is an ambiguous thing. If it uniquely links to your identity by usage of, e.g. a social security number, you can sue. But stop thinking you can preempt people from being people discriminating the platform. You can't prevent your children being bullied - you can only switch their school. Example below:

Also please note that the privacy laws in the EU do not recognize what you call "public domain," much less if the pictures were taken in a non-public place an uploaded by a facebook member.

If the place happens to be your place, or show any item, artwork or intellectual property under any form that is yours or from your employer, you can also DMCA' it out of facebook. If it only shows your face, well, that depends on your state policy of who owns the right of your face on a picture. In the EU you most likely can use anyone's face as long as it is not unfair use that places you under some legal harm. Not much else though. The bullying argument comes to mind once again...

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

You always have a choice. Don't supply your phone number to people you know, think or have the risk of making that information public to parties you don't want to interact with. You only lose control when you forfeit that control to another party. It effectively is out of your hands by opting-in, even if unconsciously. That is ignorance. What you can't allow is a bureaucratization spree from entities that they themselves have forfeit their bureaucratization rights by establishing market liberalization. You are either all-in in capitalism, or you aren't, much like communism. Any argument that attempts to say otherwise is moot.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

I do not disagree with you in your last 3 sentences. Other than that, I accept the fact that my social condition (that of a working, middle-class citizen, i.e. one vote) simply does not allow me to have that influence in communitary law-making. Democracy allows me this vote every now and then, on a political array of partisan packages I will never entirely agree with. I cope with it yet express my desire to have means to control it in web comments, petitions, but not much else. Civilized people cope. Activists "decide that some behaviour is potentially damaging and/or socially unacceptable", unilaterally. Governments turn actual decisions into law for us in an pseudo-technocratic kind of way, where we, for whatever it may matter, deem (through our vote) the government has the necessary knowledge background in order to make the right decisions, through their elected status. Well, that is the main basis for my comparison of state vs corporations right there: they both have assumed knowledge to act upon the things they are entitled rights to act upon. One just acts upon legislation, the other acts on the development, availability, usage and monetization of their intellectual property.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

Can't really see your point, but I would definitely call hypocrisy on non-racist clansmen. The EU, encompassing a capitalist state-group where internal corporate policy and business models are constantly regulated, arguing citizen protection, is just a more complex form of that same hypocrisy. Uber is the perfect example of the same concept being antithetically applied: "Oh wait, we have taxis, but we can't have non-associative taxis, even if that business is much more for the public-interest (and even pays taxes more assiduously due to high technological dependency!). Why you ask? Because Taxi associations are here for much longer, they have a cultural background (which has nothing to do with cultural history though), but well, they have a lot more political influence than this newcomer..."

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

The state also tracks non-citizens in a country, unemployed/inactive citizens, and even unemployed non-citizens abroad for whatever interests. Tracking is not just web 3.0, it's society/globalization 101. One learns to live with it. The EU wants to force a square peg on a round hole.

Comment: Re:I'm European and I don't care. EU is hypocritic (Score 1) 147

You can actually preempt those photos from being related to your account (tagged with your profile). Other than that, it's just someone posting photos in the public domain, which is not prohibited under any platform as long as they aren't offensive, abusive, with content in the likes of nude children and whatnot. A paper can just publish photos of individuals, be them famous or just part of an article piece, without any impediment, well, because that is freedom of expression business as usual. The fact you didn't know you could preempt those tags (which I didn't either from the get go but learned), is much the same as learning you have to pay taxes for whatever you do commercially in a country. You just happen to be eased into it since your parents pay most of taxes related to you until you are much aware of them when starting adult life. Analogously, the moment you find more and more undesirable tags of you in facebook, is the moment you decide to look deep enough to find out you can actually preempt it. Same as taxes, you can be caught off-guard.

Your good nature will bring unbounded happiness.