"The dirty sekret is that the dealerships couldn't either. They simply resorted to part-swapping to confirm their half-assed diagnosis(manufacturer flow charts(Step 14: Replace with known good part), NOT actual testing).
I don't disagree. But often replacing with 'known good part' is often a more efficient use of time than testing."
The problem is that independents do NOT have the financial means to keep all those parts in inventory, where the dealer DOES(parts dept.). The other issue here is that in almost EVERY case, the flow charts do not START with "replace with known good part". What this means is that unless the mechanic goes through the flowchart BEFOREHAND, they are simply wasting the time it took to get to "Step 14". Again, brute force methods to get the customer to the dealership. Waste the time of the independent, or simply blow them out of the water capability speaking. Both methods are INTENTIONAL.
As far as your other points, yes, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be taken in to account. But that SHOULD be explained to the customer, and then they get to make an informed decision. That is rarely the case. Dealership mechanics are, by and large, paid for installing a component, not removing it afterwards. That being said, that even if the part was TOTALLY unneeded, it will remain in the car and on the bill. The way dealerships pay their mechanics is wholly to blame for this. I worked at a dealership for three days, realized the fix I was in(I did primarily computer/drivability diagnosis) and promptly quit. Going back to independent shops helped, but the tactics of the auto manufacturers prevented me from completely escaping the situation.
For the sake of my own Karma, leaving the field entirely was the only solution. The whole system was based on dishonesty, deceiving the customer.
I wonder, if Rowling had not had a similar product in the works, if the decision to sue would have been different.
Although it appears the fair-use of the subject matter was rightfully in question, I imagine that had Rowling not had plans for a similar "lexicon", then it would have probably been in her best interest to NOT sue, as the chance that it would actually INCREASE sales of her novels, had it been published, could be significant.
Hopefully, I am wrong on that, and Rowling sued as a matter of taking a stand on plagiarism.
I'm seeing a LOT of posts from people that think they are wasting their time here on Slashdot.
Personally, I can't think of a more educational, insightful and amusing source of information on the web today. The moderation helps me sort the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes the wheat is pure gold.
Do you folks REALLY think your wasting your time here? Really?
I wonder how long it is before the DOJ gets in the middle of THIS one(at the behest of textbook giants).
This is great news, as I am headed back to school this semester. Hopefully, innovation and reason are not squished into paste by the big textbook manufacturers in a bid to protect their scamming ways.
As a former mechanic, it always pissed me off when auto manufacturers tried to force customers to dealerships for repairs by making the components so difficult to repair that even independent mechanics could not fix them.
The dirty sekret is that the dealerships couldn't either. They simply resorted to part-swapping to confirm their half-assed diagnosis(manufacturer flow charts(Step 14: Replace with known good part), NOT actual testing).
The end result was that the independents were made to look like bumbling idiots("Your gunna have to take it to the Dealer...") after actually trying to find the problem, while the Dealership makes the money just by throwing parts at the problem (at customer expense).
I HIGHLY suspect that your a victim of that same process. One good reason to AUTOMATICALLY suspect your bill when there is more then one component replaced. If there was, more then likely, the first part didn't fix it, but the second did, and they want to get paid for the time it took to install the first part, so they simply tell you one part "took out" the other.
This is one of the reasons I am a FORMER mechanic. From a moral standpoint, I simply could not be a party to the deception that is all too prevalent in the business, and quit.
I like how the guy seems to be regarding the "instructions" taped to the LHC with some amusement.
You know, the ones that were taped over some OTHER scientists note(and with seemingly opposite instructions, note the opposing arrows), and with "danger" tape to make it more "official".
That's not what I asked (but thanks for the informative link, regardless!).
The guy specifically stated "After a while we go through it and pick up any useful stuff (metal) to reuse it." and "The system works.", and I called him on that. I've yet to hear of this being implemented.
My guess is that there are no "bounties" in your area as well.
While it may sound counter-productive, the end result is that if an arbitrary value is is assigned to recyclables, SOMEONE will figure out how to make money from it. And if THAT results in the recycling being done, it is worthwhile.
I always thought it odd that auto-manufacturers never did this themselves. Sell a car, offer $500 bucks for the return of it, regardless of current owner. Auto manufacturers are in a far better position to recycle at a profit then municipalities. Eventually, I realized that it was the sales of oil (i.e., plastics, that our cars are now largely made of) was also a goal of auto-manufacturers, and thus recycling is largely counter-productive to THEIR goals.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I see the whole "console" market as just another form of DRM, with the added annoyances of Lock-in and planned obsolescence.
A PC, on the other hand, is not made entirely obsolete, for I can still use it for everything else I currently use it for. Sure, I may need to upgrade my vidcard eventually, but not to use all the other software on my machine.
Yeah, and my Verizon plan allows me to speak to my brother on Pluto, but only for.003ms per month.
And when I complained about it and threatened to cancel my account, I was informed of the "in perpetuity" clause of my contract that was renewed because I called to ask how much a new battery for my phone cost.
I will go back to believing that Corporations have my best interest in mind(more so then myself) and just accept everything they tell me as gospel.
All sarcasm aside, even if carbon dioxide accumulation were NOT harmful, our dependence on foreign petroleum IS. The only reason 100% recycling doesn't work is because some people are too fucking lazy to do their part. Thus, Toyota putting a $200 bounty on their batteries is a great idea. Give the lazy bastards a REASON to help.
Many states and municipalities did precisely the same thing with beverage bottles/cans. Try finding a Coke bottle in the streets of Los Angeles. You can't, because that 5 cent refund makes it worthwhile to pick the damn thing up. Maybe not to you, but certainly to someone.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
Bombing reviews is not the answer. Especially if ONE person has already explained the DRM bullshit in those reviews.
If your going to tell someone, tell the guys responsible for it.
Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?
Does that mean that if I am TOO successful in the creation and marketing of my product, I have opened myself up to reprimand/repercussions from the government? Someone help me out here. I simply don't get it.
If I make something far superior to my nearest competitor, and the entire customer base switches to my product, I've done something wrong?
Can someone please explain why this is even an issue for Google?
And in the process, teach everyone that currently uses customer reviews, that instead of reviews, the have actually been viewing an "Internet Uprising".
Great. Hope it is worth the limited amount of time it is useful as such, because eventually people will just completely dismiss them just as they now completely dismiss magazine "editor" reviews.
My original response has been modded up and down for the last few hours. At one point it was -2 Flamebait. I've NEVER been modded into the negative before, and I asked myself why this time was different.
The answer was simple. I responded in a hip-shooting, reactionary manner, without really stating my point of view very well.
What I meant to say was...
"Although I agree with you on the DRM issue, I have serious misgivings regarding "flash-mobbing" the reviews regarding the game "Spore".
In the past, I have learned the hard way that magazine reviews were, often, bought by the manufacturer of the reviewed products. I eventually realized that they were not to be trusted and as a result of that I have come to rely heavily on customer reviews. The voice of actual users of the content, people that had no axe to grind, nor money to be made.
It is my serious concern that "flash-mobbing" only cheapens the medium of customer-based reviews. How am I to make an informed decision when I now have to be concerned that the product reviews I am reading might have been HEAVILY unbalanced by the actions of what might really be a minority? The act of flash-mobbing a product leaves the reader in the position of now having to decide the motives of such a vocal and outspoken group. A healthy cynicism requires one to do that. Now, the reader is actually QUESTIONING your actions(and thus, your review), simply by reasoning that sheer numbers do not necessarily denote a majority opinion, in a limited media.
Reviews are for reviewing a product, not debates. Slashdot is the place for debate. Let the people that actually bought the product review it. If the DRM is really that bad, then hopefully we will see reviews such as "Good game, but the copy protections made it not worth bothering with."."
"You might argue that the lopsided nature of the "flash mob" twists truth by weighting the overall rating in an abnormal manner. That's a tougher, more interesting argument."
That is precisely what I was referring to. His own attempts to dissuade, are one thing, but attempting to get others to follow suit is something entirely different.
But, I fucking HATE disinformation regardless of where it comes from, more so then DRM. Even for a just cause. You're simply dishing out your OWN recipe of propaganda, fucking jerk.
I prefer to speak with my money, or in this case, the lack of it.
All one would have to do, provided there is a limited amount of responses (which seems plausible considering it is embedded in the chip), just carpet-bomb the RFID with queries. Burn up all them responses, and "Presto!", useless chip. And THAT could be done while some guy is standing next to you on the subway. Get to work and the fucking thing doesn't function anymore.
Now, if they used a rotating list of responses, the same carpet-bombing would reveal that, eventually resulting in a list of correct responses to queries.
Yay for ineffective technology!
If nothing else, it will inhibit the use of them if people that have them for legitimate uses find them unusable all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
"The dirty sekret is that the dealerships couldn't either. They simply resorted to part-swapping to confirm their half-assed diagnosis(manufacturer flow charts(Step 14: Replace with known good part), NOT actual testing).
I don't disagree. But often replacing with 'known good part' is often a more efficient use of time than testing."
The problem is that independents do NOT have the financial means to keep all those parts in inventory, where the dealer DOES(parts dept.). The other issue here is that in almost EVERY case, the flow charts do not START with "replace with known good part". What this means is that unless the mechanic goes through the flowchart BEFOREHAND, they are simply wasting the time it took to get to "Step 14". Again, brute force methods to get the customer to the dealership. Waste the time of the independent, or simply blow them out of the water capability speaking. Both methods are INTENTIONAL.
As far as your other points, yes, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be taken in to account. But that SHOULD be explained to the customer, and then they get to make an informed decision. That is rarely the case. Dealership mechanics are, by and large, paid for installing a component, not removing it afterwards. That being said, that even if the part was TOTALLY unneeded, it will remain in the car and on the bill. The way dealerships pay their mechanics is wholly to blame for this. I worked at a dealership for three days, realized the fix I was in(I did primarily computer/drivability diagnosis) and promptly quit. Going back to independent shops helped, but the tactics of the auto manufacturers prevented me from completely escaping the situation.
For the sake of my own Karma, leaving the field entirely was the only solution. The whole system was based on dishonesty, deceiving the customer.
I wonder, if Rowling had not had a similar product in the works, if the decision to sue would have been different.
Although it appears the fair-use of the subject matter was rightfully in question, I imagine that had Rowling not had plans for a similar "lexicon", then it would have probably been in her best interest to NOT sue, as the chance that it would actually INCREASE sales of her novels, had it been published, could be significant.
Hopefully, I am wrong on that, and Rowling sued as a matter of taking a stand on plagiarism.
I'm seeing a LOT of posts from people that think they are wasting their time here on Slashdot.
Personally, I can't think of a more educational, insightful and amusing source of information on the web today. The moderation helps me sort the wheat from the chaff, and sometimes the wheat is pure gold.
Do you folks REALLY think your wasting your time here? Really?
.........for they are the Choosing ones."
I wonder how long it is before the DOJ gets in the middle of THIS one(at the behest of textbook giants).
This is great news, as I am headed back to school this semester. Hopefully, innovation and reason are not squished into paste by the big textbook manufacturers in a bid to protect their scamming ways.
And, yes, I hope it is not Wiki format.
$1200?
There is your price of "portability".
As a former mechanic, it always pissed me off when auto manufacturers tried to force customers to dealerships for repairs by making the components so difficult to repair that even independent mechanics could not fix them.
The dirty sekret is that the dealerships couldn't either. They simply resorted to part-swapping to confirm their half-assed diagnosis(manufacturer flow charts(Step 14: Replace with known good part), NOT actual testing).
The end result was that the independents were made to look like bumbling idiots("Your gunna have to take it to the Dealer...") after actually trying to find the problem, while the Dealership makes the money just by throwing parts at the problem (at customer expense).
I HIGHLY suspect that your a victim of that same process. One good reason to AUTOMATICALLY suspect your bill when there is more then one component replaced. If there was, more then likely, the first part didn't fix it, but the second did, and they want to get paid for the time it took to install the first part, so they simply tell you one part "took out" the other.
This is one of the reasons I am a FORMER mechanic. From a moral standpoint, I simply could not be a party to the deception that is all too prevalent in the business, and quit.
Thanks.
My first thought was to simply write my representative, and I'll stick with my gut on this one.
Ah, yes. I misunderstood the intent of the statement. I stand corrected.
I suppose it was the knee-jerk reaction I have honed over the many years of being subjected to religion.
"This obviously raises some questions about creationism..."
Such as?
"Maybe there is no God? We were some experiment?"
The fact that life may be "creatable" does NOT infer that WE were. At least not at the hands of "gods" or other lifeforms.
I like how the guy seems to be regarding the "instructions" taped to the LHC with some amusement.
You know, the ones that were taped over some OTHER scientists note(and with seemingly opposite instructions, note the opposing arrows), and with "danger" tape to make it more "official".
That's not what I asked (but thanks for the informative link, regardless!).
The guy specifically stated "After a while we go through it and pick up any useful stuff (metal) to reuse it." and "The system works.", and I called him on that. I've yet to hear of this being implemented.
I hope they are not using humans, without proper FDA approval.
A link to just ONE municipality that is successfully mining their landfill?
I couldn't find any.
My guess is that there are no "bounties" in your area as well.
While it may sound counter-productive, the end result is that if an arbitrary value is is assigned to recyclables, SOMEONE will figure out how to make money from it. And if THAT results in the recycling being done, it is worthwhile.
I always thought it odd that auto-manufacturers never did this themselves. Sell a car, offer $500 bucks for the return of it, regardless of current owner. Auto manufacturers are in a far better position to recycle at a profit then municipalities. Eventually, I realized that it was the sales of oil (i.e., plastics, that our cars are now largely made of) was also a goal of auto-manufacturers, and thus recycling is largely counter-productive to THEIR goals.
Personally, I see the whole "console" market as just another form of DRM, with the added annoyances of Lock-in and planned obsolescence.
A PC, on the other hand, is not made entirely obsolete, for I can still use it for everything else I currently use it for. Sure, I may need to upgrade my vidcard eventually, but not to use all the other software on my machine.
Yeah, and my Verizon plan allows me to speak to my brother on Pluto, but only for .003ms per month.
And when I complained about it and threatened to cancel my account, I was informed of the "in perpetuity" clause of my contract that was renewed because I called to ask how much a new battery for my phone cost.
Your right.
I will go back to believing that Corporations have my best interest in mind(more so then myself) and just accept everything they tell me as gospel.
All sarcasm aside, even if carbon dioxide accumulation were NOT harmful, our dependence on foreign petroleum IS. The only reason 100% recycling doesn't work is because some people are too fucking lazy to do their part. Thus, Toyota putting a $200 bounty on their batteries is a great idea. Give the lazy bastards a REASON to help.
Many states and municipalities did precisely the same thing with beverage bottles/cans. Try finding a Coke bottle in the streets of Los Angeles. You can't, because that 5 cent refund makes it worthwhile to pick the damn thing up. Maybe not to you, but certainly to someone.
So, in essence, it is simply a backdoor/insider means of using the DOJ as a tool to stifle free-market forces, in favor of Googles competition.
Sheesh.
I assumed there was more to it then that, but I have not seen any replies to my post stating otherwise.
So, who investigates impropriety/corruption within the DOJ? Maybe that is who everyone needs to be emailing.
I agree, wholeheartedly. Bombing reviews is not the answer. Especially if ONE person has already explained the DRM bullshit in those reviews. If your going to tell someone, tell the guys responsible for it.
Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?
Does that mean that if I am TOO successful in the creation and marketing of my product, I have opened myself up to reprimand/repercussions from the government? Someone help me out here. I simply don't get it.
If I make something far superior to my nearest competitor, and the entire customer base switches to my product, I've done something wrong?
Can someone please explain why this is even an issue for Google?
And in the process, teach everyone that currently uses customer reviews, that instead of reviews, the have actually been viewing an "Internet Uprising".
Great. Hope it is worth the limited amount of time it is useful as such, because eventually people will just completely dismiss them just as they now completely dismiss magazine "editor" reviews.
Hey!
Whats with editing out the operative word from my posts title!?
Foul! Foul!
My original response has been modded up and down for the last few hours. At one point it was -2 Flamebait. I've NEVER been modded into the negative before, and I asked myself why this time was different.
The answer was simple. I responded in a hip-shooting, reactionary manner, without really stating my point of view very well.
What I meant to say was...
"Although I agree with you on the DRM issue, I have serious misgivings regarding "flash-mobbing" the reviews regarding the game "Spore".
In the past, I have learned the hard way that magazine reviews were, often, bought by the manufacturer of the reviewed products. I eventually realized that they were not to be trusted and as a result of that I have come to rely heavily on customer reviews. The voice of actual users of the content, people that had no axe to grind, nor money to be made.
It is my serious concern that "flash-mobbing" only cheapens the medium of customer-based reviews. How am I to make an informed decision when I now have to be concerned that the product reviews I am reading might have been HEAVILY unbalanced by the actions of what might really be a minority? The act of flash-mobbing a product leaves the reader in the position of now having to decide the motives of such a vocal and outspoken group. A healthy cynicism requires one to do that. Now, the reader is actually QUESTIONING your actions(and thus, your review), simply by reasoning that sheer numbers do not necessarily denote a majority opinion, in a limited media.
Reviews are for reviewing a product, not debates. Slashdot is the place for debate. Let the people that actually bought the product review it. If the DRM is really that bad, then hopefully we will see reviews such as "Good game, but the copy protections made it not worth bothering with."."
"You might argue that the lopsided nature of the "flash mob" twists truth by weighting the overall rating in an abnormal manner. That's a tougher, more interesting argument."
That is precisely what I was referring to. His own attempts to dissuade, are one thing, but attempting to get others to follow suit is something entirely different.
Fuck that. I dislike DRM as much as you do.
But, I fucking HATE disinformation regardless of where it comes from, more so then DRM. Even for a just cause. You're simply dishing out your OWN recipe of propaganda, fucking jerk.
I prefer to speak with my money, or in this case, the lack of it.
Seriously.
All one would have to do, provided there is a limited amount of responses (which seems plausible considering it is embedded in the chip), just carpet-bomb the RFID with queries. Burn up all them responses, and "Presto!", useless chip. And THAT could be done while some guy is standing next to you on the subway. Get to work and the fucking thing doesn't function anymore.
Now, if they used a rotating list of responses, the same carpet-bombing would reveal that, eventually resulting in a list of correct responses to queries.
Yay for ineffective technology!
If nothing else, it will inhibit the use of them if people that have them for legitimate uses find them unusable all the time.