Slashdot Mirror

Even after you test a Model 3, how do you rate its reliability against any car with an internal combustion engine?

Take a look at the top 10 car repairs of 2015: (From http://blog.credit.com/2016/04...)

        Replacing an oxygen sensor – $249
        Replacing a catalytic converter – $1,153
        Replacing ignition coil(s) and spark plug(s) – $390
        Tightening or replacing a fuel cap – $15
        Thermostat replacement – $210
        Replacing ignition coil(s) – $236
        Mass air flow sensor replacement – $382
        Replacing spark plug wire(s) and spark plug(s) – $331
        Replacing evaporative emissions (EVAP) purge control valve – $168
        Replacing evaporate emissions (EVAP) purging solenoid – $184

The model 3 doesn't even have any of these parts.

So why do they get information from cable and utility companies? They aren't creditors,
and I never signed a contract with my electric company.

http://blog.credit.com/2015/04/new-fico-score-factors-in-utilities-how-often-you-move-113098/

My understanding is that the chip enabled terminals were not being made fully functional for the retailers, but they were still being forced to accept liability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...

http://blog.credit.com/2016/03...

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing.

In that case, NSA, Google, Facebook et al. collecting our data aren't "stealing" anything either.

They are NOT property law.

Distinction without difference. The infringer gets something for nothing — like a thief. The copyright holder loses something — like a theft-victim.

The term "intellectual property" is an intentional obfuscation

Had the Commandments been the "living and breathing document", that certain folks like to pretend the US Constitution is, something like "thou shall not enjoy artwork against the artist's wishes" would've been found in it by now.

Ideas can NOT be owned.

Why not?! Inasmuch as anything can be owned, why can't ideas be? The deed on my house is just as much a "piece of paper" as anything granting rights to a song. If you can download a song against its owner's wishes, why can't you move into my home while I'm away and change the locks? It is (or ought to be) just as socially (un)acceptable...

They do not exist for the benefit of the copyright holder. They exist for the benefit of society as a whole. [...] Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

There is nothing in the article affirming your Socialistic view, that my idea exists for "society as a whole". All the section says on the matter is: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

So, you said an untruth (most likely, lied): the Constitution acknowledges the benefit the authors may derive from their writings and discoveries and leaves it to Congress to develop a system to reward them. Which Congress did — long ago — and it is referred to as "intellectual property".

Okay, your not helping yourself or anyone else like you think you are. I'm not writing this response for you personally, I'm writing it before other people follow your advice and get themselves in legal trouble.

You have rights if your a fraud victim and you should exercise them, which you haven't done. In order to protect yourself and your credit rating you have to file a fraud complaint and send it to the and credit agency and company.

If you don't do that the company can continue to report against your credit report and you can be sued by the company in the jurisdiction that they have on file and get a judgment against you. Without a fraud dispute the company has no way of knowing your right address and the fraudulent address will be used for the jurisdiction you are sued under. Once a judgment is issued against someone you can have your wages garnished, credit ruined, tax refunds seized and property sold at auction.

You'll have hell to get an judgment overturned that was issued in another jurisdiction and than your in a position of explaining why you couldn't be bothered to write a simple affidavit and mail it in. Someone following your advice could well get a judgment against them that they couldn't get rid of - even after proving they didn't take it out. With a lot of jurisdictions allowing people to be arrested in order to enforce payment of judgments your advice could well put someone in jail.

* Before I worked in IT I made a living performing large balance credit card fraud investigations ($5000+). I was the one of two people in a well known company that would track down situations like yours. Please stop giving legal advice when you haven't got the slightest clue what your talking about.

fortunately most of the tarp money was paid back, so...

You do know the amount of people that were for the American revolution was very small, and organized and worked pretty much the same way right? The only issue that's truly different is a lot of Occupy want to remove the large amount of student debt versus the large amount of British taxation.

http://www.credit.com/blog/2010/08/student-loan-debt-passes-credit-card-debt-830-billion/

PS: Look at the date on that. August, 2010.

Once financial institutions are required to make subprime and interest-only mortgages available

The kicker? They weren't required to make interest only loans at all, they made those up themselves so they could soak up the interest. They weren't even required (by the CRA, a common scapegoat) to make subprime loans as long as they could find people in (or interested in moving into) the region that would qualify for prime, and you're neglecting not only the other 50% of the loans that were made by non-regulated non-bank corporations who weren't required to do anything at all, but did so because they wanted the money, but you're also ignoring that the mortgage brokers apparently routinely under-qualified applicants: "Fannie Mae has estimated that up to half of borrowers with subprime mortgages could have qualified for loans with better terms." (more details here)

In other words, all of the interest-only mortgages and quite a few of the subprime mortgages were freely offered by the brokers with no "requirement" involved but their own desire to make money.

How Would You Deal With A Global Bandwidth Crisis?

It bugs me that when I buy bandwidth, I don't really get bandwidth. It's like the airlines used to be: oversold, on the assumption there will be no shows. But when there aren't, the people who've paid for a service don't get it.

So I guess you could have a mode where it told you there was a shortage and asked for volunteers to get bumped for a few days, perhaps in exchange for free bandwidth later (or free porn or whatever it is that people want to trade for in order to get them to voluntarily stand down). But that sounds like it still relies on someone to be willing to give up. If they're expecting to die of bird flu tomorrow, you might find a lot of people who want to watch YouTube or some porn site today before it's too late and don't really care to trade it away.

But I think a better solution would be to have selling someone bandwidth really mean selling them bandwidth. Stop all these stupid clauses in access providers saying you can't resell bandwidth (because those are just there to keep you from exposing the overselling of bandwidth they've supposedly promised you anyway and it should be your right to resell what you've legally purchased). Create large monetary penalties for any provider who sells you bandwidth and doesn't really reserve it for you.

No, I'm not anti-capitalism. I don't mind someone selling the notion of gambling on getting bandwidth and getting a cheaper price. I just don't think that should be sold by saying you're getting x bandwidth. It should be like on credit cards where you have to disclose the info in a manner plain for anyone to know, not hidden in terms of service that the gigantically fonted numbers about how fast the connection will be is not necessarily reliably there... and certainly if you're going to be in trouble for trying to use the capacity of what you're given, that should be in big letters, too. Just like the credit cards have the Schumer Box, broadband agreements should expose things like: what's the worst case? how much is it oversold? will it go down if everyone uses it at once? will it go down if more people in your neighborhood buy? under what circumstancse do they commit to increase bandwidth? With proper labeling, I have a lot fewer objections.

But also, if after proper labeling I find there's no one in my area who will sell reliable bandwidth and everyone will only sell me probabilistic bandwidth, that's significant, too. Right now, a lot of places probably figure they have broadband reliably available when really they have it only probabilistically available (that is, oversold).

It seems to me the reason bandwidth might fall short in an event like a bird flu emergency (if it might--and that's hard to know) is that there's no serious recourse to the consumer if it does. And so what's the motivation for vendors to even care?

RCN itemizes the resale of what you've paid for in bandwidth as Theft of Service.

Comcast restricts you from offering the service to others, as well as telling you that even if you use it for yourself, you (not they) are responsible for making sure your use is within the scope of what you were sold (as if the typical Joe Sixpack is going to know how to assure his use of YouTube is within such bounds) and warns you that if you exceed your quota, they can shut you down at their discretion

Time-Warner Cable has similar restrictions.

Verizon is alleged to be quite overly strict in similar ways. They make a point of noting that Verizon advertises itself as offering a service