Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Trump says science is a fake (Score 1) 382

While labor costs may have been the initial driver to outsource, the simple matter is that the US is incapable of manufacturing anything like the iPhone (don't feel bad, virtually no one can). It's not a labor issue, it's a supply chain issue. If you've ever been to Shenzen you would understand. Take Detroit at its absolute height and multiply it by 100, a factory the size of Los Angeles. All of the component manufacturers from glue, to glass, to circuit boards, SoC etc etc ect, all of the thousands of suppliers that make the things that make the things that make the things that go into an iPhone are within a few miles of each other. This is something that would take decades to replicate in the US assuming the NIMBY lobby would let you build something like it. Thinking that a simple reduction in corporate taxes or adding tariffs to goods will somehow result in a resurgence of manufacturing is laughable

Comment Re: Utter bollocks (Score 2) 171

That's because it is possible to loose money on each item and make it up in volume. However this is only possible the variable costs of your product or service are less than your price (if variable costs are higher than price, then you are truely screwed). On the other hand if your variable costs are lower, then it's about amortizing your fixed costs across more units until your total cost drops below your price. E.g I have a factory that costs me $100 a month to operate (and can make 1000 widgets). It costs $.75 in supplies to make each widget. I sell my widget for $1. If I sell 100 widgets a month I loose $.75 on each widget (total sales is $100, total cost is $175). However if i sell 1000 widgets a month, then I make $.15 a widget ($1000 in sales, $850 in costs). This isn't unusual for companies in high growth mode to over invest in capacity so that they can scale quickly to their break even point.

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 1) 693

And this is where the hyperbole comes in. There are zero climate change models that predict a Venus like Earth, nor one where "we all die", or "destroy most of the surface of the planet". The problem is that too many of the solutions that are being proposed are poo pooed by eco warriors for reasons of ideological purity. Mass conversion of coal to natural gas, nope. Investment in nuclear power, nope, crash program to develop fusion, nope. Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons

Comment Re:Impressive? (Score 1) 136

Uh, Tesla IS making the major investments to ramp up both existing production and getting ready for the Model 3. This is precisely why they've been marginally profitable for so long, they are plowing just about every cent into capital investments. Does anyone even look at the financial statements before spouting off and offering their uninformed opinion?

Comment Re:Probes AND Humans (Score 1) 114

Luna 16 a contemporary robot probe, returned 101g of material to earth. A sample based on where it happened to land and the direction its arm was facing. Apollo 17 in comparison returned 110kg of samples (1000 times a much), samples that were selected and curated by a trained geologist from varied terrain. Yes Apollo 17 was probably 100 times more expensive, but if it returned 1000 times more science, the value is higher

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 327

One example from a close friend that has practiced in both the US and Canada. In Canada he sends a patient to central radiology to get a MRI scan, there the hospitals 2 MRI scanners run nearly around the clock to maximize their use. 3 days later he gets the results back (life threatening conditions like cancer rarely need to wait for a scan). In the US, rather than see another patient, he had to go down to the scanner room and look over the MRI techs shoulder (adding zero value) so they can bill insurance for a "doctor supervised MRI scan". All the while the MRI machine in the cancer center runs at maybe 20% capacity because god forbid they use one of the 5 machines at the hospital next door which are only used maybe 30% of the time because the paperwork would be a nightmare and they'd have to share the insurance money with the hospital.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 327

While a particular hospital in the US may have better outcomes for cancer, heart disease or stroke. Outcomes for the general population are no better in the US (and in fact worse in many cases) at a much higher cost. The rich often come to the US because they can afford Cedar Sinai or the Mayo Clinic (or other world leading institutions), Joe Shmoe gets Grand Forks General which is probably worse than what they'd get at home.

Comment Re: This almost makes me want to move to Canada... (Score 1) 141

3 weeks? An oncologist friend of mine in Canada has taken in patients within 3 days of diagnosis depending on the nature and severity of the cancers. He did try briefly to practice in the US and was discusted with what he saw. The cancer center he was looking at in Boston had its own MRI machine that was used a quarter of the time, while the hospital attached to it had 2 more MRIs that were used a third of the time. When he asked why not just use 1 MRI for everyone and save several million dollars, they looked at him as if he were crazy. They also wanted him to supervise every MRI scan as a "Doctor supervised" MRI scan is charged to insurance at a much higher rate than a regular one, a it looked good to the patient. A total waste of his time as he was neither a radiologist it MRI technician

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T