Unless you paid cash, you didn't buy a car, the bank did
Entirely, 100%, wrong. The title is in my name (not the banks). A lien is NOT the same thing as ownership.
Five years ago I bought a new car or $22K. I had a choice, sell some assets (stock) and pay cash, or get a cheap 5-yr loan (0.9%). I took the loan. Today, my loan is paid off, i still have the car, I also have not had to put any money into it, I could sell the car if I wanted, and my original $22K is now worth about $37K. Even if the car lost half its value (it didn't), I still have about $4K left. You, on the other hand, are out $700.
You may THINK you 'have better things to do with your money', but paying cash when cheap loans are available is just dumb.
I take it you don't understand the meaning of the words 'easily' and 'standard'. Kit cars basically start with a 'donor' car. Not exactly easy or standard. And why provide liks to both Chevy and Ford crate motors? They are just standard motors, right?
Also, learn the difference between may and will. Yes, there are certain situations where adding resources makes it worse. However, there are also situations (probably more situations) where adding resources makes it better. Therefore, the statement 'adding resources makes it worse' is false.
I have read it. What it says is that if you are time constrained, more developers does not necessarily speed up the process, and may lead to quality problems if you keep the same time constraints. It does NOT say that more resources is always a problem. Time is a resource, does adding time to a project mean it is going to be worse? Money is a resource, does hiring some top developers, and paying them accordingly, lead to a worse outcome? Good leadership is a resource, same question. Does having 10 people looking for bugs lead to a worse outcome than 1?
The Mythical Man Month only really discusses using more resources to shorten delivery time (doesn't work). It does not say more resources cause a worse outcome.
I read it multiple times. Still can't see the point.
While the system is running you are making backups and no data is being lost. If your SSD is powered off for an extended period it starts to lose data. If you have any sort of reasonable data management you would now assume the data on the SSD to be unreliable and restore the backups before it is used. What, exactly, is the problem? Or do you think 'bring it online and wait til someone complains before restoring backups' is a reasonable data management technique?
The 'regular driver' is INSURED, so the victim is compensated. An Uber driver on his way to pick someone up is driving for commercial purposes so his 'regular' insurance will not pay, and neither will Ubers insurance as it is in effect only when there is a passenger. Yes, this has happened more than once.
Medallions and liquor licenses are not usually 'priced' (especially for high-dollar ones like you state), they are auctioned. The price goes that high because someone thinks it is worth it. Not that difficult of a concept.
Of course, in many places there is not a single auction, there are different auctions for different classes of bidders (fleet operators vs owner/drivers, etc). Naturally the price of a owner/driver medallion is usually much less than you quote, but that never gets mentioned.
Could they do it another way? Certainly. They could have a lottery for instance. However, having an auction does two things - nets more money, and insures that the purchaser is going to do what they must to protect their very valuable asset. In other words, comply with the taxi regulations and don't run a nusiance bar. These are generally things that are good for the public.
So SOME types of unregulated cabs should not exist, but Uber is special so it gets a free pass? The law does not work that way.
Also, the primary purpose of these laws in not to prevent murder and rape of fares, it is to protect the safety of the public who are NOT fares. For instance, your wonderful GPS (and Ubers much-ballyhooed 'insurance') does nothing for the poor schlub who gets mowed down by an Uber driver on the way to pick up a fare.
Medalliions cost what they cost because they are limited. They are limitied because there is only so much taxi service a city can handle. Adding more cars to the street doesn't move more people, it just creates more congestion. And congestion leads to aggressive driving and such stupity as using the sidewalk as a way around traffic. A glut of taxis means aggresive actions in trying to get fares (like picking up on the wrong side of the street, etc). A glut of taxis also means it is difficult for any particular taxi service to make enough money to stay in business. Who will survive? The one that spends the least money on luxuries like proper maintenance.
Yes, this describes conditions before the taxi laws were introduced. It is why the people wanted regulation.
There are good reasons for the taxi regulations and the medallion system. Just because you want to pretend they don't exist does not mean the don't exist in reality.
Yeah, the 'transportation industry' wrote those laws. Just like the meat packing industry wrote the meat packing laws, the building industry wrote the fire codes, the coal industry wrote the clean air laws, the mining industry wrote the mining safety laws, the restaurant industry wrote the health codes, etc.
Maybe you should read up on what conditions were like before those laws (and still are in some places), then maybe you could understand why the PEOPLE wanted those laws.
By the time it gets to this stage they have already given up on trying to find you. You are already on your way to a default judgement, this is just a courtesy to you to give you an opportunity to defend yourself. Getting rid of your Facebook account would do absolutely nothing to help you, it would just make it more likely you would never see a notice.
You do realize that the standard way of getting notices to people who can't be found is by posting a notice in the newspaper, don't you? Look in a newspaper in the classified ad section for 'legal notices'. You will find all kinds of things: taxes owed, foreclosure notices, divorces, lawsuits, etc.
RTFA. The guy is deliberately making it hard for anyone to find him. That is not all that unusual. When such things happen, after several attempts to serve in person have failed, they post the notice somewhere you might see it (newspaper, Facebook, etc). Whether or not you actually see it at that point is nobodies concern. Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.
Seriously? First, your liability does not end where your coverage does. If you are under insured, it is you who us responsible. Second, the insurance company does not pay out of the goodness of their hearts, they pay because you pay them to. And if you have a claim, you will pay more.
The lower insurance rates with dash cams are more about fraud detection than dispute resolution.
Insurance fraud is not an accident, it is a crime. Big difference.
Also, I should have mentioned rear-end accidents caused by the lead vehicle 'stopping short'. That is always the fault of the following vehicle for not leaving enough space. There are cases where the lead car may be at fault, such as merging in too close to following cars, but that is different from just stopping short, which is what was originally discussed (brake assist causes car to stop quicker than following car without assist).
Also, there is a big difference between fault for an accident and compensation for an accident. In the insurance fraud case, the following vehicle is still 'at fault', but the leading vehicle may be denied compensation if fraud is suspected.
I didn't find any references to 'overbraking' being against the law, while following too close clearly is.
It does not matter if the speed control is speed adjusting, it is still YOUR responsibility to maintain safe distance.
4 wheel drive does not affect acceleration, it affects traction. The only way to blame 4WD for unintended acceleration is if you were planning on spinning your wheels, which again is just shitty driving.
And, no, I am not missing the point, you are. The 'failure modes' you listed, whether or not some technology was involved, are failures of the DRIVER, and that is where the liability resides. That does NOT tell us who will be liable when there is no driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you paid cash, you didn't buy a car, the bank did
Entirely, 100%, wrong. The title is in my name (not the banks). A lien is NOT the same thing as ownership.
Five years ago I bought a new car or $22K. I had a choice, sell some assets (stock) and pay cash, or get a cheap 5-yr loan (0.9%). I took the loan. Today, my loan is paid off, i still have the car, I also have not had to put any money into it, I could sell the car if I wanted, and my original $22K is now worth about $37K. Even if the car lost half its value (it didn't), I still have about $4K left. You, on the other hand, are out $700.
You may THINK you 'have better things to do with your money', but paying cash when cheap loans are available is just dumb.
I take it you don't understand the meaning of the words 'easily' and 'standard'. Kit cars basically start with a 'donor' car. Not exactly easy or standard. And why provide liks to both Chevy and Ford crate motors? They are just standard motors, right?
Also, learn the difference between may and will. Yes, there are certain situations where adding resources makes it worse. However, there are also situations (probably more situations) where adding resources makes it better. Therefore, the statement 'adding resources makes it worse' is false.
I have read it. What it says is that if you are time constrained, more developers does not necessarily speed up the process, and may lead to quality problems if you keep the same time constraints. It does NOT say that more resources is always a problem. Time is a resource, does adding time to a project mean it is going to be worse? Money is a resource, does hiring some top developers, and paying them accordingly, lead to a worse outcome? Good leadership is a resource, same question. Does having 10 people looking for bugs lead to a worse outcome than 1?
The Mythical Man Month only really discusses using more resources to shorten delivery time (doesn't work). It does not say more resources cause a worse outcome.
I read it multiple times. Still can't see the point.
While the system is running you are making backups and no data is being lost. If your SSD is powered off for an extended period it starts to lose data. If you have any sort of reasonable data management you would now assume the data on the SSD to be unreliable and restore the backups before it is used. What, exactly, is the problem? Or do you think 'bring it online and wait til someone complains before restoring backups' is a reasonable data management technique?
The bit rot happens when the drives have been powered off for an extended period. The backups are taken before the power is removed.
So the guy who overturned his Winnebago is a 'douchebag', but YOUR problems are purely mechanical, beyond your control? Gotcha.
Except for the fact that their insurance is only in effect when there is a passenger in the car.
The 'regular driver' is INSURED, so the victim is compensated. An Uber driver on his way to pick someone up is driving for commercial purposes so his 'regular' insurance will not pay, and neither will Ubers insurance as it is in effect only when there is a passenger. Yes, this has happened more than once.
Medallions and liquor licenses are not usually 'priced' (especially for high-dollar ones like you state), they are auctioned. The price goes that high because someone thinks it is worth it. Not that difficult of a concept.
Of course, in many places there is not a single auction, there are different auctions for different classes of bidders (fleet operators vs owner/drivers, etc). Naturally the price of a owner/driver medallion is usually much less than you quote, but that never gets mentioned.
Could they do it another way? Certainly. They could have a lottery for instance. However, having an auction does two things - nets more money, and insures that the purchaser is going to do what they must to protect their very valuable asset. In other words, comply with the taxi regulations and don't run a nusiance bar. These are generally things that are good for the public.
So SOME types of unregulated cabs should not exist, but Uber is special so it gets a free pass? The law does not work that way.
Also, the primary purpose of these laws in not to prevent murder and rape of fares, it is to protect the safety of the public who are NOT fares. For instance, your wonderful GPS (and Ubers much-ballyhooed 'insurance') does nothing for the poor schlub who gets mowed down by an Uber driver on the way to pick up a fare.
You don't think there were tragedies, news reports, public outrage about unregulated cabs? I suggest you do some research.
Medalliions cost what they cost because they are limited. They are limitied because there is only so much taxi service a city can handle. Adding more cars to the street doesn't move more people, it just creates more congestion. And congestion leads to aggressive driving and such stupity as using the sidewalk as a way around traffic. A glut of taxis means aggresive actions in trying to get fares (like picking up on the wrong side of the street, etc). A glut of taxis also means it is difficult for any particular taxi service to make enough money to stay in business. Who will survive? The one that spends the least money on luxuries like proper maintenance.
Yes, this describes conditions before the taxi laws were introduced. It is why the people wanted regulation.
There are good reasons for the taxi regulations and the medallion system. Just because you want to pretend they don't exist does not mean the don't exist in reality.
Yeah, the 'transportation industry' wrote those laws. Just like the meat packing industry wrote the meat packing laws, the building industry wrote the fire codes, the coal industry wrote the clean air laws, the mining industry wrote the mining safety laws, the restaurant industry wrote the health codes, etc.
Maybe you should read up on what conditions were like before those laws (and still are in some places), then maybe you could understand why the PEOPLE wanted those laws.
By the time it gets to this stage they have already given up on trying to find you. You are already on your way to a default judgement, this is just a courtesy to you to give you an opportunity to defend yourself. Getting rid of your Facebook account would do absolutely nothing to help you, it would just make it more likely you would never see a notice.
You do realize that the standard way of getting notices to people who can't be found is by posting a notice in the newspaper, don't you? Look in a newspaper in the classified ad section for 'legal notices'. You will find all kinds of things: taxes owed, foreclosure notices, divorces, lawsuits, etc.
RTFA. The guy is deliberately making it hard for anyone to find him. That is not all that unusual. When such things happen, after several attempts to serve in person have failed, they post the notice somewhere you might see it (newspaper, Facebook, etc). Whether or not you actually see it at that point is nobodies concern. Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.
They don't have to know he accepted the papers. No different than when they post legal notices (taxes, foreclosures, etc) in the newspaper.
TFA discusses this, and they are working on cadmium-free dots, but they are harder to produce. They use indium and phosphorus for those.
According to TFA, they are nanoscale semiconductor crystals that turn blue light into narrow-spectrum greens and reds.
Seriously? First, your liability does not end where your coverage does. If you are under insured, it is you who us responsible. Second, the insurance company does not pay out of the goodness of their hearts, they pay because you pay them to. And if you have a claim, you will pay more.
The lower insurance rates with dash cams are more about fraud detection than dispute resolution.
Insurance fraud is not an accident, it is a crime. Big difference.
Also, I should have mentioned rear-end accidents caused by the lead vehicle 'stopping short'. That is always the fault of the following vehicle for not leaving enough space. There are cases where the lead car may be at fault, such as merging in too close to following cars, but that is different from just stopping short, which is what was originally discussed (brake assist causes car to stop quicker than following car without assist).
Also, there is a big difference between fault for an accident and compensation for an accident. In the insurance fraud case, the following vehicle is still 'at fault', but the leading vehicle may be denied compensation if fraud is suspected.
I didn't find any references to 'overbraking' being against the law, while following too close clearly is.
Where? Everywhere I have been the driver in back is always at fault in rear-end collisions.
It does not matter if the speed control is speed adjusting, it is still YOUR responsibility to maintain safe distance.
4 wheel drive does not affect acceleration, it affects traction. The only way to blame 4WD for unintended acceleration is if you were planning on spinning your wheels, which again is just shitty driving.
And, no, I am not missing the point, you are. The 'failure modes' you listed, whether or not some technology was involved, are failures of the DRIVER, and that is where the liability resides. That does NOT tell us who will be liable when there is no driver.