I only go to the dealer for the every 30K service. The more frequent stuff I do at whatever "jiffy lube" happens to be most convenient on that particular day.
Going to the dealer for everything is too much of a bother.
That's one reason I would avoid crummy American brands and over hyped luxury brands.
Of course blame the salesman. This problem isn't just about electric car. It's also about cheaper versions of gas cars. That also includes all of the stupid "dealer add ons" they indulge in. Some of these are consumables that only last for the first year of the car and jack up the price significantly.
My favorite one is the "nitrogen filled tires". [breathes in deeply]
I was interested in a car that was already on the lot but I had to out wait the stupid salesmen on my last car for about 4 months before they actually broke down and sold it to me.
I would find it less bothersome to pay MSRP and order it directly from the factory.
All you have to do is tell someone that there's money to be made in space. If there's a giant diamond asteroid or one made of gold, people will make it happen. It might not happen today or even in anti-Sagan's lifetime but the dreams of avarice will be fulfilled.
Plus there's the whole "living in glory until the end of time" thing to consider.
I'm sure every Robber Baron would love a holiday dedicated to their name.
If space cannot be opened up to individuals then it will never be open at all. During the age of Columbus, any schmuck with a ship could go out exploring. Before that, any schmuck with even a tiny canoe could go exploring the high seas.
The idea that Lorne Greene can launch a moon mission from his backyard has to become feasible before serious exploration of space happens.
Private companies getting in the game are just a necessary natural evolution of the technology.
Since you can't seem to get basic technical details correct, I am not sure we should trust anything you have to say on the matter.
On the the other hand, the old school educational use case seems to be pretty effectively handled by the current generation of projectors. Just use the old pull down screens and a bog standard media cart. Any projector is certainly more mobile and less awkward to carry around than ANY decent sized TV.
Beyond schools, one does not use a projector because they are "cheap".
Antenna TV really only works if you really really REALLY don't care about the crap you're watching. Otherwise, it's painful and confusing and you quickly realize that you would be better off with your own DVDs.
Broadcast TV mutilates content. It even mutilates stuff originally made for broadcast.
Something else that you can do with a cheap set top box is have a single unified user interface imposed upon all of your displays without the need to restrict yourself to a single display vendor.
The premium for the smart parts of my first smart TV was 3x the cost of one of these little boxes. Simply not worth it for embedded functionality that will quickly be desupported.
It's much easier to replace an external box and keep the nice expensive display.
There is simply no need to replace displays on the schedule that industry wants you to.
Cell phones and tablets are cool when you are on the road. This is especially true if you have a less lame device and you can store stuff on the device and not be dependent on slow and unreliable networks.
At home, the bigger the better.
The first month that the original iPad was out I figured out how to stream video to it (around the house) and quickly got bored with that idea.
Give my my 120inch screen. The display device doesn't need intelligence. It's actually better if it has none since external boxes are cheap and are evolving quickly.
The smarts doesn't need to be built into the TV. It really hasn't been since the advent of cable. There's no compelling reason to change that now.
> I replace my PC's at about 1.5 times the rate of replacing my Macs.
Then you're an even bigger idiot then one would think from the rest of your post. Macs are inherently less maintainable and more prone to failure due to the stupid form factors they use.
My entire Mac flirtation period came and went while my main PC kept chugging along being useful and just powerful enough (despite years of use) that upgrading it makes no sense.
With extra memory slots and the option to upgrade my GPU, it can still remain useful for YEARS despite being pretty old already.
My Macs quickly became doorstops, especially because of the GPUs they came with.
So MacOS "does the same thing" but doesn't exactly "do the same thing". There's a BIG difference between blowing something away entirely and just moving it off to the side.
If anything, it looks like Apple took the arrogance level down a notch or two.
Sure. However some people have no real argument and realize that they have no real argument. So they will happily use an obviously bogus argument that's emotionally loaded.
Unfortunately, it works very well. Otherwise people would not bother.
It doesn't help that most people on both sides of the pond are nitwits.
On the other hand, tourists going to Germany are warned to have cash on hand to pay for any speeding tickets you might get in a rural speed trap. Your car might be confiscated otherwise.
That sh*t is just normal over there. Over here it's at least considered scandalous.
In other words, we need to have deformed babies or our national bird facing extinction before companies have to tell consumers what they are being sold.
That's such moronic BULLSHIT.
The buyer has the right to know what they are buying. That's the only way that a free market can work. You're clearly against the free market.
> The boogey-man stories one can invent over "frankenfood" are unlimited and highly resistant to rational discussion.
So fucking what?
It's not like we're talking a public health crisis here. This is only about corporate profits. If Monsanto takes a bath on this, then we just use a different source of corn or salmon. There will be no great tragedy. We will continue to leave massive amounts of crops unharvested. We will continue to waste still more to prop up commodities prices. Then grocers and consumers will toss yet more of it.
GMO products are entirely optional in the strongest possible way.
Nope. The big problem is the poster boy for this technology uses it to abuse farmers and sell more pesticide. The problem for Monsanto and friends is that they don't have a good sales pitch. If they're honest and tell the general public what their genetic meddling does, then people will be TURNED OFF.
The big money is not in improving nutrition or even taste but making staples cheaper for snack companies.
A big chunk of the GMO "benefit" is making high fructose corn syrup cheaper.
That's why posing this as a "science" issue is retarded. It really shows the hubris of scientists and is an easy way to gloss over various issues that fall outside of the narrow focus of industry shills.
Calling it "science" makes it sound benign and neutral when it's really a technology issue. Suddenly a cabal of technologists that would be skeptical in their own arena swallow the "but science" rhetoric hook line and sinker without the usual skepticism.
Whining about philosophical points made in fiction is simply attempting to shoot the messenger and discount a good idea because you can insult the source.
The problem with technology (as opposed to "but science" ) is what people do with it. There's a huge gulf in the trustworthiness between a monk, a university professors, and a large chemical company.
Some California cheese variants are vile. I appreciate knowing where my cheese is coming from so I know to avoid those varieties that Californians tend to screw up.
If you have any business selling it then you have no business hiding ANYTHING. You should proudly display your country and state of origin and anything that's gone into the product.
Never mind GMOs. We already have a dearth of food diversity as it is. Much of what is available is driven by the concerns of large industrial interests. The value of the food itself is secondary. We already have the problem of cost cutting by industry driving the crapulence of food.
A lot of the stuff that industry wants to genetically tinker with is already on my shit list anyways.
> Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Not even close. GMO is more "useful". That's why there are so many ninnies like you participating as willing dupes in the Monsanto propaganda campaign. If it were otherwise, then companies like Monsanto simply wouldn't bother. They would have no motive.
Even in places that aren't crazy (Silicon Valley) and full of kids in startups, you have the expectation of working the occasional "crunch time" or odd hours. That's even something we were told to expect in college (in the midwest).
Companies of the same class, industry, and region also vary widely.
If anything, it seems that 45% of the respondents were complaining about "work-life balance" issues. That would seem to make it more of a myth even if a small minority thinks it's one.
Outsourcing and "the bad economy" have certainly been held over people's heads. To believe that corporations won't abuse you to the extent we let them get away with it is just plain silly.
Most people simply aren't in the position to declare that they've had enough and they're not taking any more. Consumer culture strongly discourages that level of solvency.
Slashdot Mirror
ppppfffft...
I only go to the dealer for the every 30K service. The more frequent stuff I do at whatever "jiffy lube" happens to be most convenient on that particular day.
Going to the dealer for everything is too much of a bother.
That's one reason I would avoid crummy American brands and over hyped luxury brands.
Of course blame the salesman. This problem isn't just about electric car. It's also about cheaper versions of gas cars. That also includes all of the stupid "dealer add ons" they indulge in. Some of these are consumables that only last for the first year of the car and jack up the price significantly.
My favorite one is the "nitrogen filled tires". [breathes in deeply]
I was interested in a car that was already on the lot but I had to out wait the stupid salesmen on my last car for about 4 months before they actually broke down and sold it to me.
I would find it less bothersome to pay MSRP and order it directly from the factory.
All you have to do is tell someone that there's money to be made in space. If there's a giant diamond asteroid or one made of gold, people will make it happen. It might not happen today or even in anti-Sagan's lifetime but the dreams of avarice will be fulfilled.
Plus there's the whole "living in glory until the end of time" thing to consider.
I'm sure every Robber Baron would love a holiday dedicated to their name.
If space cannot be opened up to individuals then it will never be open at all. During the age of Columbus, any schmuck with a ship could go out exploring. Before that, any schmuck with even a tiny canoe could go exploring the high seas.
The idea that Lorne Greene can launch a moon mission from his backyard has to become feasible before serious exploration of space happens.
Private companies getting in the game are just a necessary natural evolution of the technology.
Since you can't seem to get basic technical details correct, I am not sure we should trust anything you have to say on the matter.
On the the other hand, the old school educational use case seems to be pretty effectively handled by the current generation of projectors. Just use the old pull down screens and a bog standard media cart. Any projector is certainly more mobile and less awkward to carry around than ANY decent sized TV.
Beyond schools, one does not use a projector because they are "cheap".
Antenna TV really only works if you really really REALLY don't care about the crap you're watching. Otherwise, it's painful and confusing and you quickly realize that you would be better off with your own DVDs.
Broadcast TV mutilates content. It even mutilates stuff originally made for broadcast.
Something else that you can do with a cheap set top box is have a single unified user interface imposed upon all of your displays without the need to restrict yourself to a single display vendor.
The premium for the smart parts of my first smart TV was 3x the cost of one of these little boxes. Simply not worth it for embedded functionality that will quickly be desupported.
It's much easier to replace an external box and keep the nice expensive display.
There is simply no need to replace displays on the schedule that industry wants you to.
Cell phones and tablets are cool when you are on the road. This is especially true if you have a less lame device and you can store stuff on the device and not be dependent on slow and unreliable networks.
At home, the bigger the better.
The first month that the original iPad was out I figured out how to stream video to it (around the house) and quickly got bored with that idea.
Give my my 120inch screen. The display device doesn't need intelligence. It's actually better if it has none since external boxes are cheap and are evolving quickly.
The smarts doesn't need to be built into the TV. It really hasn't been since the advent of cable. There's no compelling reason to change that now.
Peddle your FUD some place else.
Things do "just work" and updates are entirely optional. It's only Microsoft products that need to be patched daily to deal with the virus du jour.
> I replace my PC's at about 1.5 times the rate of replacing my Macs.
Then you're an even bigger idiot then one would think from the rest of your post. Macs are inherently less maintainable and more prone to failure due to the stupid form factors they use.
My entire Mac flirtation period came and went while my main PC kept chugging along being useful and just powerful enough (despite years of use) that upgrading it makes no sense.
With extra memory slots and the option to upgrade my GPU, it can still remain useful for YEARS despite being pretty old already.
My Macs quickly became doorstops, especially because of the GPUs they came with.
...or just get a cheap Steam Box for them. [snort]
One of the SteamBox vendors was offering a really nice sale yesterday. Entry level gaming box with an nv750 for $300.
So MacOS "does the same thing" but doesn't exactly "do the same thing". There's a BIG difference between blowing something away entirely and just moving it off to the side.
If anything, it looks like Apple took the arrogance level down a notch or two.
Sure. However some people have no real argument and realize that they have no real argument. So they will happily use an obviously bogus argument that's emotionally loaded.
Unfortunately, it works very well. Otherwise people would not bother.
It doesn't help that most people on both sides of the pond are nitwits.
On the other hand, tourists going to Germany are warned to have cash on hand to pay for any speeding tickets you might get in a rural speed trap. Your car might be confiscated otherwise.
That sh*t is just normal over there. Over here it's at least considered scandalous.
They can look like a number of things. Grey putty is a common one.
What they don't look like is the innards of an electronic clock.
Good luck with that in Texas now that Paris has been attacked.
In other words, we need to have deformed babies or our national bird facing extinction before companies have to tell consumers what they are being sold.
That's such moronic BULLSHIT.
The buyer has the right to know what they are buying. That's the only way that a free market can work. You're clearly against the free market.
> The boogey-man stories one can invent over "frankenfood" are unlimited and highly resistant to rational discussion.
So fucking what?
It's not like we're talking a public health crisis here. This is only about corporate profits. If Monsanto takes a bath on this, then we just use a different source of corn or salmon. There will be no great tragedy. We will continue to leave massive amounts of crops unharvested. We will continue to waste still more to prop up commodities prices. Then grocers and consumers will toss yet more of it.
GMO products are entirely optional in the strongest possible way.
Nope. The big problem is the poster boy for this technology uses it to abuse farmers and sell more pesticide. The problem for Monsanto and friends is that they don't have a good sales pitch. If they're honest and tell the general public what their genetic meddling does, then people will be TURNED OFF.
The big money is not in improving nutrition or even taste but making staples cheaper for snack companies.
A big chunk of the GMO "benefit" is making high fructose corn syrup cheaper.
Monsanto really doesn't have a good sales pitch.
That's why posing this as a "science" issue is retarded. It really shows the hubris of scientists and is an easy way to gloss over various issues that fall outside of the narrow focus of industry shills.
Calling it "science" makes it sound benign and neutral when it's really a technology issue. Suddenly a cabal of technologists that would be skeptical in their own arena swallow the "but science" rhetoric hook line and sinker without the usual skepticism.
Imagine your own PHB in charge of this stuff.
Whining about philosophical points made in fiction is simply attempting to shoot the messenger and discount a good idea because you can insult the source.
The problem with technology (as opposed to "but science" ) is what people do with it. There's a huge gulf in the trustworthiness between a monk, a university professors, and a large chemical company.
Some California cheese variants are vile. I appreciate knowing where my cheese is coming from so I know to avoid those varieties that Californians tend to screw up.
If you have any business selling it then you have no business hiding ANYTHING. You should proudly display your country and state of origin and anything that's gone into the product.
Never mind GMOs. We already have a dearth of food diversity as it is. Much of what is available is driven by the concerns of large industrial interests. The value of the food itself is secondary. We already have the problem of cost cutting by industry driving the crapulence of food.
A lot of the stuff that industry wants to genetically tinker with is already on my shit list anyways.
> Or any hybrid food for that matter. Or plant splicing, like done on tomatoes or fruit trees. Its a scary world.
Not even close. GMO is more "useful". That's why there are so many ninnies like you participating as willing dupes in the Monsanto propaganda campaign. If it were otherwise, then companies like Monsanto simply wouldn't bother. They would have no motive.
Even in places that aren't crazy (Silicon Valley) and full of kids in startups, you have the expectation of working the occasional "crunch time" or odd hours. That's even something we were told to expect in college (in the midwest).
Companies of the same class, industry, and region also vary widely.
If anything, it seems that 45% of the respondents were complaining about "work-life balance" issues. That would seem to make it more of a myth even if a small minority thinks it's one.
Outsourcing and "the bad economy" have certainly been held over people's heads. To believe that corporations won't abuse you to the extent we let them get away with it is just plain silly.
Most people simply aren't in the position to declare that they've had enough and they're not taking any more. Consumer culture strongly discourages that level of solvency.