Of course, late checks don't always mean the company is in deep (financial) trouble.
A bunch of incompetent jerks who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, yes, financial trouble, not always.
Currently working a crappy job while I look for work in my field and the company has a habit of getting checks to people late (not all people all the time) or changing dates for check disbursement with a weeks notice saying it is "to prevent errors". Which of course they will still make.
Funny, I had a good impression of them before I started work. They managed to get on my shit list in less than a month. They better hope I am never in a position to influence textbook purchases (oops too late-oh well, it should be fun some day telling a rep why I won't use their textbook...)
The record companies (in other words the Music Industry) will be supplying the music. So this will be different how?
Some people have mentioned that maybe we will be able to pick and choose our songs. Well, no, that's not the idea. They will sell CD's of lesser known artists or older ones that can't sell records anymore (like the Eagles or Elton John-I am NOT making this up-read the interview).
Look, this may be a good idea for Starbucks. It may get people to spend more money (CD's, plus more coffee). And the record companies (sell more CD's without any work....) But it isn't revolutionary or even new.
"competing chains like Tully's or Seattle's Best Coffee."
Hate to break this to you, but Seattle's Best Coffee is now owned by...Starbucks. It may have kept its original name, but it's no longer a competing chain....
"there's no way I want some judge telling me I have to provide soft toilet paper to my employees because I'm a pain in the ass."
Well, I doubt that is going to happen (the toilet paper part). Of course, if you really are a pain in the ass, you will tend to turn good employees into ones you might not like.
Here's an idea. Treat your employees well. If you compensate them for certain expenses, you shouldn't change that expectation without VERY good reason. And that reason should be explained. Even then, don't expect people to like it. In some states it is a lot harder to fire people (apparently unlike Ohio and Tenn.) even if they don't have a contract.
Oh, and people only tend to unionize when they have gotten screwed over by employers (or believe they have). So if your "future" employees ever unionize, you had better look in the mirror for the reason....
Look, I can accept that a brick and mortar retailer may not be able to match the price of a mail order only business. And I certainly don't try to get information locally then order over the internet (very rude).
But if a local store can't provide better customer service than a internet store, there isn't much use for many of them (especially electronics). Fundamentally, I shop online because I getter better service than I can locally (let's face it, I have NEVER received useful information at a large electronics chain store)! All this and a competitive (or cheaper price)....
The problem that many large retailers such as BestBuy are having is that they can't compete on price (after making it their primary focus) and they can't compete on customer service (because an educated sales staff costs money). So what real advantage does a BestBuy have over an internet shop? Unless you need/want it NOW, or it is very expensive to ship, NOTHING.
I am curious. Why do you consider his website ugly?
Plain, yes.
Ugly, I just don't see it.
Look, aesthetics are subjective. I think we have just proved this:) I am unsure where you get the idea that, according to Mr. Nielson, a website that functions well can't look good. If a website does not function well, it fails at its primary purpose. The only difference is that it might be a good looking piece of garbage rather than an ugly piece of garbage.
I believe his fundamental point is that web sites that get in the way of their intended purpose (be it providing information, taking orders, getting work done) are a significant and unnecessary drain on productivity and/or income. And the people designing and/or specing the site are not the most knowledgable ones about what really will work the best. The users need to be considered, in the beginning, so less money is wasted in the end....
Probably not the only person who finds it painful.
But it seems fine to me. Sure, it isn't pretty, but he explains why there aren't any graphics (size, and he isn't a designer). And I can find information on the site. Don't really see a problem here.
Well, yes, OS X did prove him wrong, in a year (Mac OS X wasn't released until March 24th, 2001). Of course the "prediction" was probably based in part on this statement you quoted:
"The only data points we have say that it can't be done."
That is a little bit different than saying it won't be done or even is impossible, only that the current data implies that it is not possible.
Actually, a two second following distance is just fine. In good weather and conditions. More is nice, but people tend to move in... (granted, I have seen people move from wide open outside lanes into congested center lanes for no apparent reason, other than basic stupidity I guess...)
Now, back to reality. In periods of high traffic, it is NOT possible to keep such distances (at least without the liberal use of a grenade launcher). There are TOO MANY CARS. To keep a three second or greater following distance, there WOULD have to be fewer cars.
So, then, why exactly does the DOJ have to compile the whole report ALL at ONCE? Can't they extract the data in small chunks then reassemble it for the whole report? I mean, it might be easier to run one query, but a series of smaller queries ought to be able to get the same information and not overload the system.
Other than it's the only excuse they could use not to comply with a FOIA request of course....
"you will find that the center of the tire will wear faster than the edges. At this point you will also start to lose traction. You will get better gas mileage, though!"
Yes, less friction = less rolling resistance = better mileage. Of course, less friction = less area of the tire in contact with the road = less control = less safety (relative). Personally, I go by the car manufacturers recommendation-their ratings are better than other peoples guesses.
Considering the only thing keeping you on the road is four patches of rubber about the size of a persons hand, I think I will take the hit in fuel mileage:) No point in buying high performance tires and then not properly inflating them, kind of defeats the purpose:)
Yes, a full-sized SUV certainly does have its uses. If you need to haul a lot of people or tow a lot of stuff.
It's just funny to see people buy the typical SUV which doesn't have any more room/towing capacity/load capacity than a typical wagon/minivan/sedan because they say they (supposedly) "need" these things. An example of the top of my head: Jeep Grand Cherokee, seats four people, cargo capacity of about 1000 to 1100 pounds (this includes people). This is not much more than my VW Jetta (4 people, 900 or so pounds-not a very large car-circa 1995). Of course the Jeep is better off road, if you are so inclined. It is amazing how little cargo most SUV's can actually carry.
People are of course free to buy whatever they want, but many many of these small and midsized SUV's cost a LOT more than cars and wagons with similar capabilities. If you want one, fine. Just admit you probably don't NEED it, realize you are paying a premium, and be done with it.
Did someone just say "MasterCard" and "absorb the cost". I don't think so. Any disputed charges are ultimately eaten by the seller (vendor/retailer/etc.) not MC, if I am not mistaken. Or indirectly by fees charged to everyone.
I don't think their risk is really very high. Maybe their risk of making a very high rate of return OTOH....
Well, to answer your question with another question.
Why not?
"You are neither trained or vetted in any way to handle such information."
And those who use it are? In theory yes, but as the data comes from a private company, how do I know they are?
"You are not bound by any contracts or oaths to up hold the law or protect peoples privacy other than your own."
If this is public info, used by the government, well then, why can't I have access to it? It can't be privacy, otherwise how can this data be sold/used without my permission? If it is for sale it is a little difficult to claim it is infringing on someone's privacy (although it probably is in reality). Heck, I would be willing to take an oath to see the data-if that isn't good enough, well then I guess that shows you how useful oaths are (they aren't).
The primary reason I want to see the screeners information: It is the best way to insure that someone cares enough to check the data for accuracy. Embarrassment is a powerful force.
The second reason: They don't have anything to hide, do they?:)
Look, if they were really being charitable, they would release the patents into the public domain.
There is nothing wrong with them getting tax write-offs/breaks or whatever from their patents. They applied for and received them after all.
But don't pretend they are doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Because they are assigning the patent rights to a nonprofit org. rather than opening up the patents to all, I assume they have a PR/profit motive that is at least as great as their desire to do good. While this may not be correct, it is a reasonable assumption from their current actions and their past history...
Look, I don't want to believe this, but why else would they be regulated heavily?
They may not be regulated BECAUSE they are a small group whose regulation may not cause much uproar. But it sure makes it easy to do and show someone (your superiors?, the public?) that you are DOING SOMETHING.
These rockets have no real security risk. They were already regulated. Two things that are more dangerous: rental trucks filled with homemade explosives and pipe bombs made with black powder.
Do you need a background check and to be fingerprinted to by diesel fuel, fertilizer and black powder? Nope.
Which items have killed/maimed/harmed more people? Gee, I wonder...
Which would cause an uproar if heavily regulated? BINGO.
The government does stuff all the time that does not increase safety, actually decreases safety, in the name of keeping us safer. This is one of them (most airline "security" is another). It is a waste of limited resources. After a while I have a hard time believing that it is purely stupidity-I have to believe there is some malice in there somewhere-where I don't know.
Because if it is ALL stupidity, then the human race is doomed.
Yes, the great clause that has been used to justify anything and everything. Look, I believe the Constitution has to be interpreted to some extent. But I really doubt that was the intent of the original clause. Granted, ultimately the Constitution is what the courts say it is, but unfortunately, they don't seem to read it much:)
Ultimately, I think it is best that individuals can do what they want without government interference as long as they don't bother/harm anyone else. I think that was the original intent of the Constitution. The ICC has been used to subvert that intent, even though it has been done for the public good. The end result however, has been the government's good.
There is no reason to fingerprint these people and run background checks on them. That is unwarranted government intrusion. The materials used in these rockets can't be any worse than the materials that I can store in any garage (gasoline). They already had to get clearance to launch the rockets anyway.
Constitutional law is an interesting subject. And like sausages, one might not want to see how it is made or applied for that matter. Remember, just because it is Constitutional does not make it right (slavery used to be legal...) I would submit that those who are involved in the process are not any better at it or more correct than your basic educated person who can read the primary sources. Those in the system are beholden to it and restricted by it (precedent-even if it is "bad" or "wrong"). Granted, the details are hard to work out-they always are-especially when you have conflicting "rights". But the overall concepts put forth in the Constitution are not hard.
Hmm, yes, if we are talking about rights, then the ninth would be more appropriate.
Of course, the power to make laws comes from the people... And undelegated powers are reserved to the States "or to the people" according to the Constitution.
Oh, well, in any case, I don't think the feds should be getting in the way of this hobby-it was already regulated-one can hardly launch these types of rockets in your backyard.
"You've obviously never studied Constitutional law because you have no right to build rockets."
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....
"It had everything to do with the fact that McDonald's maintained their coffee at an unsafe temperature, knew the temperature to be unsafe, and failed to remedy that problem."
HUH? Look up the proper brewing and holding temps for coffee sometime. Brewing temps are just below boiling. Holding temps are near 180 degrees. Properly brewed coffee and properly stored coffee can cause 3rd degree burns. Therefore, under the conclusions of this asinine lawsuit, ALL hot coffee served properly EVERYWHERE (in the region covered by the courts concerned) is UNSAFE.
In reality, only coffee spilled on yourself is unsafe. If a McDonalds employee did the spilling, then yes, it would be reasonable to sue them. But as it was self-inflicted by a person of (I am making a large assumption here) sound mind, there was no basis for a lawsuit FOR ANY REASON, not even to recover medical costs (that's why we have health insurance).
Obviously, you don't have the common sense to figure out that the only person at fault here is the woman who spilled the coffee on herself. Unfortunately, based on the outcome of the lawsuit and the other people who agree with you, it is obvious that common sense is not that common.
* Why is a public school system involved with a settlement about monopoly pricing? That has nothing to do with consumers!
Probably two reasons: First, the libraries ARE a consumer. Those CD's they carry aren't donated. They bought them. They are a party to the settlement.
Second, it may have been an additional "penalty" imposed for the public good. You did bad, you probably did more harm than we can quantify, so you have to give X amount to libraries and the such.
Certain about the first. Not sure about the second.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, late checks don't always mean the company is in deep (financial) trouble.
A bunch of incompetent jerks who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, yes, financial trouble, not always.
Currently working a crappy job while I look for work in my field and the company has a habit of getting checks to people late (not all people all the time) or changing dates for check disbursement with a weeks notice saying it is "to prevent errors". Which of course they will still make.
Funny, I had a good impression of them before I started work. They managed to get on my shit list in less than a month. They better hope I am never in a position to influence textbook purchases (oops too late-oh well, it should be fun some day telling a rep why I won't use their textbook...)
The record companies (in other words the Music Industry) will be supplying the music. So this will be different how?
Some people have mentioned that maybe we will be able to pick and choose our songs. Well, no, that's not the idea. They will sell CD's of lesser known artists or older ones that can't sell records anymore (like the Eagles or Elton John-I am NOT making this up-read the interview).
Look, this may be a good idea for Starbucks. It may get people to spend more money (CD's, plus more coffee). And the record companies (sell more CD's without any work....) But it isn't revolutionary or even new.
"competing chains like Tully's or Seattle's Best Coffee."
Hate to break this to you, but Seattle's Best Coffee is now owned by...Starbucks. It may have kept its original name, but it's no longer a competing chain....
"there's no way I want some judge telling me I have to provide soft toilet paper to my employees because I'm a pain in the ass."
Well, I doubt that is going to happen (the toilet paper part). Of course, if you really are a pain in the ass, you will tend to turn good employees into ones you might not like.
Here's an idea. Treat your employees well. If you compensate them for certain expenses, you shouldn't change that expectation without VERY good reason. And that reason should be explained. Even then, don't expect people to like it. In some states it is a lot harder to fire people (apparently unlike Ohio and Tenn.) even if they don't have a contract.
Oh, and people only tend to unionize when they have gotten screwed over by employers (or believe they have). So if your "future" employees ever unionize, you had better look in the mirror for the reason....
Look, I can accept that a brick and mortar retailer may not be able to match the price of a mail order only business. And I certainly don't try to get information locally then order over the internet (very rude).
But if a local store can't provide better customer service than a internet store, there isn't much use for many of them (especially electronics). Fundamentally, I shop online because I getter better service than I can locally (let's face it, I have NEVER received useful information at a large electronics chain store)! All this and a competitive (or cheaper price)....
The problem that many large retailers such as BestBuy are having is that they can't compete on price (after making it their primary focus) and they can't compete on customer service (because an educated sales staff costs money). So what real advantage does a BestBuy have over an internet shop? Unless you need/want it NOW, or it is very expensive to ship, NOTHING.
I am curious. Why do you consider his website ugly?
:) I am unsure where you get the idea that, according to Mr. Nielson, a website that functions well can't look good. If a website does not function well, it fails at its primary purpose. The only difference is that it might be a good looking piece of garbage rather than an ugly piece of garbage.
Plain, yes.
Ugly, I just don't see it.
Look, aesthetics are subjective. I think we have just proved this
I believe his fundamental point is that web sites that get in the way of their intended purpose (be it providing information, taking orders, getting work done) are a significant and unnecessary drain on productivity and/or income. And the people designing and/or specing the site are not the most knowledgable ones about what really will work the best. The users need to be considered, in the beginning, so less money is wasted in the end....
Probably not the only person who finds it painful.
But it seems fine to me. Sure, it isn't pretty, but he explains why there aren't any graphics (size, and he isn't a designer). And I can find information on the site. Don't really see a problem here.
What exactly do you find painful?
Well, yes, OS X did prove him wrong, in a year (Mac OS X wasn't released until March 24th, 2001). Of course the "prediction" was probably based in part on this statement you quoted:
"The only data points we have say that it can't be done."
That is a little bit different than saying it won't be done or even is impossible, only that the current data implies that it is not possible.
Well, it is interesting research.
But, for any city of any significant size, it's essentially:
We can rigorously predict traffic jams with less certainty than the average driver.
The research is just not terrible useful at the present time.
Actually, a two second following distance is just fine. In good weather and conditions. More is nice, but people tend to move in... (granted, I have seen people move from wide open outside lanes into congested center lanes for no apparent reason, other than basic stupidity I guess...)
Now, back to reality. In periods of high traffic, it is NOT possible to keep such distances (at least without the liberal use of a grenade launcher). There are TOO MANY CARS. To keep a three second or greater following distance, there WOULD have to be fewer cars.
"Just a flock of sheep waiting for the most shiny light."
But surely that shiny light is the end of the tunnel?
Hey, did you hear a noise?
So, then, why exactly does the DOJ have to compile the whole report ALL at ONCE? Can't they extract the data in small chunks then reassemble it for the whole report? I mean, it might be easier to run one query, but a series of smaller queries ought to be able to get the same information and not overload the system.
Other than it's the only excuse they could use not to comply with a FOIA request of course....
"you will find that the center of the tire will wear faster than the edges. At this point you will also start to lose traction. You will get better gas mileage, though!"
:) No point in buying high performance tires and then not properly inflating them, kind of defeats the purpose :)
Yes, less friction = less rolling resistance = better mileage. Of course, less friction = less area of the tire in contact with the road = less control = less safety (relative). Personally, I go by the car manufacturers recommendation-their ratings are better than other peoples guesses.
Considering the only thing keeping you on the road is four patches of rubber about the size of a persons hand, I think I will take the hit in fuel mileage
Yes, a full-sized SUV certainly does have its uses. If you need to haul a lot of people or tow a lot of stuff.
It's just funny to see people buy the typical SUV which doesn't have any more room/towing capacity/load capacity than a typical wagon/minivan/sedan because they say they (supposedly) "need" these things. An example of the top of my head: Jeep Grand Cherokee, seats four people, cargo capacity of about 1000 to 1100 pounds (this includes people). This is not much more than my VW Jetta (4 people, 900 or so pounds-not a very large car-circa 1995). Of course the Jeep is better off road, if you are so inclined. It is amazing how little cargo most SUV's can actually carry.
People are of course free to buy whatever they want, but many many of these small and midsized SUV's cost a LOT more than cars and wagons with similar capabilities. If you want one, fine. Just admit you probably don't NEED it, realize you are paying a premium, and be done with it.
Did someone just say "MasterCard" and "absorb the cost". I don't think so. Any disputed charges are ultimately eaten by the seller (vendor/retailer/etc.) not MC, if I am not mistaken. Or indirectly by fees charged to everyone.
I don't think their risk is really very high. Maybe their risk of making a very high rate of return OTOH....
Money, PR, and/or possibly control?
Oops, that's just my cynicism talking....
Well, to answer your question with another question.
:)
Why not?
"You are neither trained or vetted in any way to handle such information."
And those who use it are? In theory yes, but as the data comes from a private company, how do I know they are?
"You are not bound by any contracts or oaths to up hold the law or protect peoples privacy other than your own."
If this is public info, used by the government, well then, why can't I have access to it? It can't be privacy, otherwise how can this data be sold/used without my permission? If it is for sale it is a little difficult to claim it is infringing on someone's privacy (although it probably is in reality). Heck, I would be willing to take an oath to see the data-if that isn't good enough, well then I guess that shows you how useful oaths are (they aren't).
The primary reason I want to see the screeners information: It is the best way to insure that someone cares enough to check the data for accuracy. Embarrassment is a powerful force.
The second reason: They don't have anything to hide, do they?
Look, if they were really being charitable, they would release the patents into the public domain.
There is nothing wrong with them getting tax write-offs/breaks or whatever from their patents. They applied for and received them after all.
But don't pretend they are doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Because they are assigning the patent rights to a nonprofit org. rather than opening up the patents to all, I assume they have a PR/profit motive that is at least as great as their desire to do good. While this may not be correct, it is a reasonable assumption from their current actions and their past history...
Look, I don't want to believe this, but why else would they be regulated heavily?
They may not be regulated BECAUSE they are a small group whose regulation may not cause much uproar. But it sure makes it easy to do and show someone (your superiors?, the public?) that you are DOING SOMETHING.
These rockets have no real security risk. They were already regulated. Two things that are more dangerous: rental trucks filled with homemade explosives and pipe bombs made with black powder.
Do you need a background check and to be fingerprinted to by diesel fuel, fertilizer and black powder? Nope.
Which items have killed/maimed/harmed more people? Gee, I wonder...
Which would cause an uproar if heavily regulated? BINGO.
The government does stuff all the time that does not increase safety, actually decreases safety, in the name of keeping us safer. This is one of them (most airline "security" is another). It is a waste of limited resources. After a while I have a hard time believing that it is purely stupidity-I have to believe there is some malice in there somewhere-where I don't know.
Because if it is ALL stupidity, then the human race is doomed.
Yes, the great clause that has been used to justify anything and everything. Look, I believe the Constitution has to be interpreted to some extent. But I really doubt that was the intent of the original clause. Granted, ultimately the Constitution is what the courts say it is, but unfortunately, they don't seem to read it much :)
Ultimately, I think it is best that individuals can do what they want without government interference as long as they don't bother/harm anyone else. I think that was the original intent of the Constitution. The ICC has been used to subvert that intent, even though it has been done for the public good. The end result however, has been the government's good.
There is no reason to fingerprint these people and run background checks on them. That is unwarranted government intrusion. The materials used in these rockets can't be any worse than the materials that I can store in any garage (gasoline). They already had to get clearance to launch the rockets anyway.
Constitutional law is an interesting subject. And like sausages, one might not want to see how it is made or applied for that matter. Remember, just because it is Constitutional does not make it right (slavery used to be legal...) I would submit that those who are involved in the process are not any better at it or more correct than your basic educated person who can read the primary sources. Those in the system are beholden to it and restricted by it (precedent-even if it is "bad" or "wrong"). Granted, the details are hard to work out-they always are-especially when you have conflicting "rights". But the overall concepts put forth in the Constitution are not hard.
Hmm, yes, if we are talking about rights, then the ninth would be more appropriate.
Of course, the power to make laws comes from the people... And undelegated powers are reserved to the States "or to the people" according to the Constitution.
Oh, well, in any case, I don't think the feds should be getting in the way of this hobby-it was already regulated-one can hardly launch these types of rockets in your backyard.
"You've obviously never studied Constitutional law because you have no right to build rockets."
Unless of course you believe that powers not specificially given to the government by the people are reserved for the people. It is called the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. Before you spout off about Constitutional law, perhaps you should read the Constitution first.
Unfortunately, it seems to be an often ignored part of the Constitution....
"It had everything to do with the fact that McDonald's maintained their coffee at an unsafe temperature, knew the temperature to be unsafe, and failed to remedy that problem."
HUH? Look up the proper brewing and holding temps for coffee sometime. Brewing temps are just below boiling. Holding temps are near 180 degrees. Properly brewed coffee and properly stored coffee can cause 3rd degree burns. Therefore, under the conclusions of this asinine lawsuit, ALL hot coffee served properly EVERYWHERE (in the region covered by the courts concerned) is UNSAFE.
In reality, only coffee spilled on yourself is unsafe. If a McDonalds employee did the spilling, then yes, it would be reasonable to sue them. But as it was self-inflicted by a person of (I am making a large assumption here) sound mind, there was no basis for a lawsuit FOR ANY REASON, not even to recover medical costs (that's why we have health insurance).
Obviously, you don't have the common sense to figure out that the only person at fault here is the woman who spilled the coffee on herself. Unfortunately, based on the outcome of the lawsuit and the other people who agree with you, it is obvious that common sense is not that common.
"The courts did not think that the RIAA would be this sleezy."
Huh? An arm of the government run by people with law degrees and members of the bar did not think other lawyers would be sleazy?
Now that's a good one.
* Why is a public school system involved with a settlement about monopoly pricing? That has nothing to do with consumers!
Probably two reasons:
First, the libraries ARE a consumer. Those CD's they carry aren't donated. They bought them. They are a party to the settlement.
Second, it may have been an additional "penalty" imposed for the public good. You did bad, you probably did more harm than we can quantify, so you have to give X amount to libraries and the such.
Certain about the first. Not sure about the second.