Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Yes, but that doesn't solve the issue of when people do not have access to their own overnight off street parking, now does it?

In the city I live in, Norwich UK, more than 80% of the homes here are 1800s terracing with no off street parking - so no where to do your fabled overnight charge. Office parking is restricted (nowhere I have worked has parking for 100% of employees, and its first come first served). Gas station still looks better for the vast majority of people here...

Comment Re:If it looks like a phone company. (Score 1) 25

Virtual Network Operators (companies which sell an end user service but dont operate any equipment themselves, rather lease service off of actual telecoms companies) are still covered under these rules, so if you are providing the service over the internet then I dont see why you shouldnt also fall under the rules...

Comment Re:Can they take Polanski's assets too? (Score 1) 166

Regardless of the crime at hand, if the judge throws out the deal, the plea should go with it and the case returned to trial - numerous people see an issue with what the judge did in Polanski's case, so perhaps its you with the problem here.

I've also not pretended anything - you seem to have an agenda here, one at odds with the facts of the case.

Comment Re:Can they take Polanski's assets too? (Score 3, Informative) 166

Polanski's case is slightly more complex than you make out - he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor under a plea deal with the prosecutor. Under that plea deal, he served 42 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation and under the terms of the plea deal he was to serve probation for the rest of his sentence. No one prosecuting the case was pushing for long term prison time, and the prosecutors, psychiatrists and probation officers were all pushing for probation only.

However, it became apparent to Polanski that the judge was going to throw out the terms of the plea deal, and sentence him to prison under the guilty plea, so Polanski decided the court couldn't be trusted and left the country.

Lets be clear here, right up to that point, the court had utterly no problem letting Polanski travel back and forth to Europe to finish projects during the course of the trial, and Polanski could have absconded at any point prior to his psychiatric evaluation period, but he didn't - it wasn't until it became apparent the judge was going to let the guilty plea stand while throwing out the deal attached to that plea that Polanski absconded.

So yes, Polanski did a horrible thing - but the judge in his case caused his absconding and acted disgustingly. Numerous US judges and officials have said that there was misconduct by the judge in his case, and even his victim has filed to have the charges withdrawn or dismissed, but neither can happen if the defendant doesnt appear in court - which obviously isnt going to happen, and Polanski isnt going to be satisfied with any guarantees from a US judge at this point in time.

Comment Re:Not just the Chinese (Score 1) 170

Scotland doesnt own 100% of the UK's oil and gas reserves, and in any case could not afford to leave the union - their last case for independence was based around fiscal funding from massive oil and gas revenues, revenues which collapsed by 90% the year after the 2014 independence vote.

Gibraltar won't ever leave, because the only alternative it would have to survive would be to join Spain (Spain wouldn't allow it to join the EU as an independent country), and basically no one in Gibraltar wants that.

And I don't get where you think either country would be able to simply walk away from any Sterling debt simply because the currency changes - debt is not linked to a currency, it exists despite the currency a country uses. No country has yet been able to drop its debts on joining the Euro, so I have no idea why this rumour seems to be so persistent.

Comment Re:As PE said (Score 1) 343

Its a pointless story on a pointless topic, because this is the fourth stealth aircraft operated by the USAF which would have been tested against modern SAM systems, so its not as if they only just discovered a problem with the training process.

Turn on the transponder or hang external ordnance off of pylons on the wings, both would be enough to raise the RCS enough to make it hairy for the pilots.

Comment Re:They'll profit by selling in volume (Score 1) 177

Congratulations for not reading my post, dipshit, because it covers exactly fucking that.

Heres a little summary for you, because it seems you cant read large explanations - the negative number doesnt necessarily remain static when the production chain can be optimised for volume, so it wont always be "negative number multiplied by large number".

And if you doubt the facts of the matter, then you are doubting every single aircraft manufacturer (and both Airbus and Boeing are independently profitable), every single car manufacturer (you think that the first cars GM makes for a model are unit profitable? Think again...), every single electronics manufacturer out there (you think the first new model iPhones off the production line are per unit profitable? Think again....).

Practically no production line in the world is per unit profitable from the moment it starts, every single one has a ramp up and its that ramp up where the revenue goes from negative to positive.

Its basic fucking manufacturing economics. Which you fail at.

Comment Re:Critical how much Hillary wins by? (Score 1) 279

If you look at past Presidential results, G W Bush and Obama's victories were resoundingly pedestrian (with their opposition getting electoral votes like 266 or 173) compared to Reagans landslide of 525 electoral votes to 13.

The margin does matter, not because it overtly means anything, but it changes political landscapes. If the Hillary-Trump battle ends up with a narrow margin for a Clinton victory, it means that Trump didnt need to do a lot more to win and that his style of politics *works*, so future campaigns can be run in the same way. Trump needs to get annihilated in order for the Republicans to actually enact meaningful change to guarantee they dont have another Trump style candidate.

Comment Re:not happening. (Score 1) 279

Canada uses the same voting system as the UK, but we have nearly double the number of voters than Canada, we don't require *any* ID to be shown to vote (you get asked your name and street address, thats it - its illegal for the officer to ask for ID) and the UK still has a near zero rate of election fraud. Its so low that individual cases of people turning up to vote and finding their name has already been crossed off make the national news.

Comment Re:They'll profit by selling in volume (Score 1) 177

Its not necessarily a folly at all.

Take an example from the aviation industry - you have a lot of up front investment to design an aircraft, build the test aircraft and carry out the testing.

You are typically north of $15Billion in debt on the program before the first aircraft has been delivered.

The problem is, that first aircraft delivered adds to the debt, it doesn't decrease it. Woah, I hear you say, why would you hand an aircraft over that costs you more to make than a customer buys it for? Simple really, because the customer wants a decent price and won't pay any more, and you are banking on that in order to sell lots of these aircraft.

It gets worse than the first aircraft, as the first few hundred off the production line will actually cost you more than you receive from a customer. The design, development and testing of the aircraft has already been paid for, so whats adding to the debt now?

Inefficiencies in the production chain, thats whats adding to the debt - the production chain ramp up costs money, and its burned on those first few hundred aircraft

But with each aircraft that is delivered, the cost of production goes down as the production chain improves, parts get cheaper to produce, parts are produced quicker etc etc etc.

So Boeing and Airbus count on two points in any aircrafts production life - the moment an airframe breaks even on production costs, and the moment the program pays back its investment. The first is called the production break even, and the second is called the program break even. All planes delivered after the program break even is profit, so for a market of 1,000 aircraft, you generally aim for production break even to be no later than 300, and program break even to be no more than 600, and then you sit back and let the money roll in.

Pricing aircraft before the production break even to eliminate the concept of production break even doesn't work, because no one will buy those early airframes if they cost more than the late airframes, so you *have* to eat that cost in order to have a product which you can sell at a profit later on.

Occasionally airframe manufacturers cock it up - Airbus achieved production break even on the A380 but will never achieve program break even, and Boeing currently wont achieve program break even on the 787 even with the current order book of 1,100 aircraft - they need another 300 or so on top of that to clear the program back log of debt.

But then you have cash cows like the A320, A330, 737, 767 and 777 all of which achieved production and program break evens early on in their lives, and went on to sell massive amounts of airframes at profitable levels. For example, the A320s production break even was set at 400 airframes - its now past 7,100 aircraft delivered, so thats the trade off.

So Musk and Tesla know they have to bring the cost of producing the cars down - the only way to do that is to actually produce them. R&D is only going to get you so far on the costs, you need a production line which can be streamlined and self lubricates, so you need to take a loss on the product until the production line is cost effective.

So selling it cheap but making it up in volume does work - the "common folly" only comes into play when the cost of producing the volume stays static at the same cost of producing one item, which it does not do. This is why the gigafactory concept is so beneficial here - Musk puts one on each continent and pushes battery production to levels never seen before, levels which are orders of magnitude more than current levels, the cost of the car doesnt go down but the cost of producing a core component of the car does down dramatically.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper.