Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Boy, that's a heck of a customer service attitude to take. And we want Americans to sell stuff to the rest of the world? The enterprise of the USA has to be as friendly and easy as McDonalds, and that, my friend, is not.
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
Yes, but in the sense, the government is only allowed to do what it says the constitution says it can do. Essentially, if not for the 4th amendment, you could make the argument the Federal government is not allowed to conduct searches at all. It's up to the states.
Yes. Not only that, the government has no constitutional right to make those laws. It's clearly up to the states.
Yeah, but what would Jesus think about a guy in the class who cannot see but wants to learn, and cannot because everyone else was selfish. What would Jesus think about a man in a wheelchair not able to get up a curb or a step where everyone walked by, because they were too greedy to put in a stoop or stop to help. If all we are is dust and molecules, then yeah, let the crippled and blind go back to being dust, but Christ did not put a limit as to what is human and what is not. Christ healed the sick, and lived among the infirm, and challenged us to do the same.
Yes, being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to change is a terrible pain in the ass, a disruption, and inconvenience, but is it really so hard to watch. Christ will judge you you know, so you may as well apologize to Him and the Infirm for you curses and get on with building ramps and fixing the Amazon software.
As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.
You can say that, but I think you would be wrong. There are many, many times when corporations act to do something besides make money. Hell, underlying the whole banking catastrophe was a sense of mission to put people into homes.
Do corporations exist to make money? Yes. But the truth is, many people that found them and run them see them as a vehicle for their personal goals, first and foremost.
Yes. Not only that, the government has no constitutional right to make those laws. It's clearly up to the states.
It is important that schools accommodate handicaps, most people see failing to make a simple accommodation and instead restricting someones access to education as unfair.
No, actually, they don't. If they did, you wouldn't have had to point the federal cannon and armies of lawyers at their head to get them to do it.
As someone who has worked in higher ed providing technology for the disabled, I'm happy to see this. If you actually read TFA, you'll see the issue is that there's no text-to-speech in Kindle's menus, so the blind can't navigate the device.
I don't care. I have a tool that I can use, and I can use it. It's not right to hold someone back in the name of egalitarian principals. Saying that I cannot do something, because someone else cannot, is bullshit. Disability does not give you the right to oppress.
Can't believe people still fall for the naive "Don't be evil" motto these days.
It may shock you, but corporations are made of people, and sometimes, the people that make them up are moved to do ethical things. That Google's actions are newsworthy is a reflection on us, not just an abstraction of the corporation.
This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding" since Henry Ford did the $5 day. I can't even begin to calculate how much Google went up in my mind for doing this. They may have lost a bunch of potential customers, but for what its worth, they've just got me for life.
Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way. I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.
India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things, and then never actually doing them. If India and Russia would have done everything they said, India would have five aircraft carriers and a man on the moon, Russia would have mach 15 planes for everyone, and more.
You have a food that kills rats. How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats? I mean, do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food? This is absolutely a great thing.
you might as well rename the Concorde Fallacy - let's forget that we lost the house and the car, and remember that we can get 50 cents on each dollar invested!
Let's add, non-union, shifting medical and other social costs onto the North in the form of federal transfers, plants. People that work at Wawa in the North make more money than some of these car workers. We're just shitting all over our own people.
Just how many Toyota/Nissan/Honda vehicles sold in North America are made in Japan?
All the good stuff in the car is made in Japan. The final assembly point is in the USA, but this like IKEA or kit cars at that point, enough to try and avoid duties and currency fluctuations, and score political points, but not really made in the USA, and certainly not designed in the USA. It's a foreign occupation, is what it is, and the people that buy into it, are unfortunately collaborators.
In 5 years, I'll be able to make the same trip for $4 in 'fuel' costs without breathing carcinogens all along the way and without having half the moving parts in a vehicle that costs about the same when new as my Honda did when it was new. That's assuming we make no progress in battery technology for cars in the next 5 years. A real decrease in the standard of living? Insanity.
If you call having a Honda a standard of living, I'd agree with you. But I like to drive in a V8, no more than a V6 less. I like the roar of the engine, the smell of the gas, the stomping on the gas, the oodles of raw power, and you cannot and will not get that ever in a battery operated vehicle. You keep saying that there will be some mythological increase in battery technology, but there will never, ever, be a day where battery energy density approaches that of gasoline. If driving in an econobox is what you are after, then yeah, I can see your point. You don't really like -cars- as much as you like transportation. But for those of us that do, there will be just transportation, but not cars. It's going to suck.
If you drive a Prius like a sports car, a BMW M3 gets better gas mileage. Your point is absurd
What, that electric cars aren't as good? That they will NEVER BE AS GOOD. Laws of physics stacked against them. Face it, yet again we have another spot where moving to the energy efficient way of the future causes a real decrease in the people's standard of living, and everyone sweeps it under the rug. I mean, why not be honest with the people.
That's slated for 2011. Tesla already delivered the Roadster and the Model S is simply the next step from that technology. There's no reason to doubt it's coming.
Yeah but they failed with the Roadster. You don't get the 0-60 and the 200mph range BOTH, you get either. If you drive like grandma, you get the range. If you drive like a sportscar that it is, you get nothing.
Carbon hydrogen bonds are just really good at storing energy. To say that electric cars will have both the power and endurance of gas cars is like ignoring physics.
Tesla Model S goes 300 miles on a single charge, can recharge to full on a standard wall jack in just a few hours (not overnight), has a quickcharge option with special equipment that takes just 45 minutes, and is specifically designed so that the battery can be swapped in 5 minutes (such as at a service station). So your Saturday would basically consist of unplugging your car from a socket in your garage, driving to the grocery store, bank, Best Buy, etc, driving home, plugging it back in, and having that 150 mile trip cost you $3.
What else ya got?
Something that doesn't cost $65,000 and actually exists.
And my argument is that they should quit using lead and cadmium in paint for anything they export.
I'm actually against all imports from China and want free trade to be ended. But I also hate the lie behind this argument - its a "Chinese things are unsafe", and as a rule, that's actually not true and leads to a sort of racism that "Chinese are unsafe". I have nothing against them. I just don't want to import their stuff.
The battery should be cheaper, by far, because its a lot easier to dig coal out of the ground, have one big engine convert it to electricity and ship it over a wire, than it is to build container ships and oil drilling and refining apparatus send you energy that you can convert.
Make the batteries bigger and you still have to have the gas engine for when you visit your cousin 300 miles away.
It's not for longer trips that pure EV's get killed. It's the every Saturday when you have to run to the grocery store, bank, stop by your mother in laws, pick up some stuff at Best Buy, and you drive 150 miles running errands use case. Our leaders never mention this case though, because they actually don't drive for themselves.
Too true -- like the Clash for Clunkers program, this is a redistribution of wealth,
You can't argue the government has no right to redistribute wealth, when, by virtue of grants of monopoly versus patents, copyrights, and the creation of armed forces to protect the property of the wealthy, that they are actually getting the right to redistribute and retain wealth themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Boy, that's a heck of a customer service attitude to take. And we want Americans to sell stuff to the rest of the world? The enterprise of the USA has to be as friendly and easy as McDonalds, and that, my friend, is not.
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
Yes, but in the sense, the government is only allowed to do what it says the constitution says it can do. Essentially, if not for the 4th amendment, you could make the argument the Federal government is not allowed to conduct searches at all. It's up to the states.
Yes. Not only that, the government has no constitutional right to make those laws. It's clearly up to the states.
Yeah, but what would Jesus think about a guy in the class who cannot see but wants to learn, and cannot because everyone else was selfish. What would Jesus think about a man in a wheelchair not able to get up a curb or a step where everyone walked by, because they were too greedy to put in a stoop or stop to help. If all we are is dust and molecules, then yeah, let the crippled and blind go back to being dust, but Christ did not put a limit as to what is human and what is not. Christ healed the sick, and lived among the infirm, and challenged us to do the same.
Yes, being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to change is a terrible pain in the ass, a disruption, and inconvenience, but is it really so hard to watch. Christ will judge you you know, so you may as well apologize to Him and the Infirm for you curses and get on with building ramps and fixing the Amazon software.
I like companies that think "do no evil" is good for business. We should have more of them.
Those are the ones that tend to survive. Give everyone involved a fair deal, you get good product, good service and good customers.
The problem is that this is very hard to do in old corporations. They become very politicized.
As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.
You can say that, but I think you would be wrong. There are many, many times when corporations act to do something besides make money. Hell, underlying the whole banking catastrophe was a sense of mission to put people into homes.
Do corporations exist to make money? Yes. But the truth is, many people that found them and run them see them as a vehicle for their personal goals, first and foremost.
So, we should just toss the disability laws?
Yes. Not only that, the government has no constitutional right to make those laws. It's clearly up to the states.
It is important that schools accommodate handicaps, most people see failing to make a simple accommodation and instead restricting someones access to education as unfair.
No, actually, they don't. If they did, you wouldn't have had to point the federal cannon and armies of lawyers at their head to get them to do it.
As someone who has worked in higher ed providing technology for the disabled, I'm happy to see this. If you actually read TFA, you'll see the issue is that there's no text-to-speech in Kindle's menus, so the blind can't navigate the device.
I don't care. I have a tool that I can use, and I can use it. It's not right to hold someone back in the name of egalitarian principals. Saying that I cannot do something, because someone else cannot, is bullshit. Disability does not give you the right to oppress.
Can't believe people still fall for the naive "Don't be evil" motto these days.
It may shock you, but corporations are made of people, and sometimes, the people that make them up are moved to do ethical things. That Google's actions are newsworthy is a reflection on us, not just an abstraction of the corporation.
You mean like SDI?
Hey, it's just taking a little bit longer than expected. But at least they can intercept some missiles now, and at varying stages in flight.
This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding" since Henry Ford did the $5 day. I can't even begin to calculate how much Google went up in my mind for doing this. They may have lost a bunch of potential customers, but for what its worth, they've just got me for life.
Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way. I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.
India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things, and then never actually doing them. If India and Russia would have done everything they said, India would have five aircraft carriers and a man on the moon, Russia would have mach 15 planes for everyone, and more.
You might, but that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. In what way are the two remotely similar?
Both argue to some extent that past history should not determine investment advice.
You have a food that kills rats. How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats? I mean, do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food? This is absolutely a great thing.
you might as well rename the Concorde Fallacy - let's forget that we lost the house and the car, and remember that we can get 50 cents on each dollar invested!
heavily-subsidized Southern-U.S. plants
Let's add, non-union, shifting medical and other social costs onto the North in the form of federal transfers, plants. People that work at Wawa in the North make more money than some of these car workers. We're just shitting all over our own people.
Just how many Toyota/Nissan/Honda vehicles sold in North America are made in Japan?
All the good stuff in the car is made in Japan. The final assembly point is in the USA, but this like IKEA or kit cars at that point, enough to try and avoid duties and currency fluctuations, and score political points, but not really made in the USA, and certainly not designed in the USA. It's a foreign occupation, is what it is, and the people that buy into it, are unfortunately collaborators.
In 5 years, I'll be able to make the same trip for $4 in 'fuel' costs without breathing carcinogens all along the way and without having half the moving parts in a vehicle that costs about the same when new as my Honda did when it was new. That's assuming we make no progress in battery technology for cars in the next 5 years. A real decrease in the standard of living? Insanity.
If you call having a Honda a standard of living, I'd agree with you. But I like to drive in a V8, no more than a V6 less. I like the roar of the engine, the smell of the gas, the stomping on the gas, the oodles of raw power, and you cannot and will not get that ever in a battery operated vehicle. You keep saying that there will be some mythological increase in battery technology, but there will never, ever, be a day where battery energy density approaches that of gasoline. If driving in an econobox is what you are after, then yeah, I can see your point. You don't really like -cars- as much as you like transportation. But for those of us that do, there will be just transportation, but not cars. It's going to suck.
If you drive a Prius like a sports car, a BMW M3 gets better gas mileage. Your point is absurd
What, that electric cars aren't as good? That they will NEVER BE AS GOOD. Laws of physics stacked against them. Face it, yet again we have another spot where moving to the energy efficient way of the future causes a real decrease in the people's standard of living, and everyone sweeps it under the rug. I mean, why not be honest with the people.
That's slated for 2011. Tesla already delivered the Roadster and the Model S is simply the next step from that technology. There's no reason to doubt it's coming.
Yeah but they failed with the Roadster. You don't get the 0-60 and the 200mph range BOTH, you get either. If you drive like grandma, you get the range. If you drive like a sportscar that it is, you get nothing.
Carbon hydrogen bonds are just really good at storing energy. To say that electric cars will have both the power and endurance of gas cars is like ignoring physics.
Tesla Model S goes 300 miles on a single charge, can recharge to full on a standard wall jack in just a few hours (not overnight), has a quickcharge option with special equipment that takes just 45 minutes, and is specifically designed so that the battery can be swapped in 5 minutes (such as at a service station). So your Saturday would basically consist of unplugging your car from a socket in your garage, driving to the grocery store, bank, Best Buy, etc, driving home, plugging it back in, and having that 150 mile trip cost you $3.
What else ya got?
Something that doesn't cost $65,000 and actually exists.
s opposed to digging things like Lithium out of the ground.....Why should batteries be cheaper again?
They are more reusable than a gallon of gasoline.
And my argument is that they should quit using lead and cadmium in paint for anything they export.
I'm actually against all imports from China and want free trade to be ended. But I also hate the lie behind this argument - its a "Chinese things are unsafe", and as a rule, that's actually not true and leads to a sort of racism that "Chinese are unsafe". I have nothing against them. I just don't want to import their stuff.
The battery should be cheaper, by far, because its a lot easier to dig coal out of the ground, have one big engine convert it to electricity and ship it over a wire, than it is to build container ships and oil drilling and refining apparatus send you energy that you can convert.
Make the batteries bigger and you still have to have the gas engine for when you visit your cousin 300 miles away.
It's not for longer trips that pure EV's get killed. It's the every Saturday when you have to run to the grocery store, bank, stop by your mother in laws, pick up some stuff at Best Buy, and you drive 150 miles running errands use case. Our leaders never mention this case though, because they actually don't drive for themselves.
Too true -- like the Clash for Clunkers program, this is a redistribution of wealth,
You can't argue the government has no right to redistribute wealth, when, by virtue of grants of monopoly versus patents, copyrights, and the creation of armed forces to protect the property of the wealthy, that they are actually getting the right to redistribute and retain wealth themselves.