Yes, but it doesn't make any sense to give back the full value of a car after five years. It's just stupid, and you know very well it's stupid. The car is not worth that much - not even close. All a consumer could really hope for would be to get the value of the difference in value of the car before and after this information was released. If this scandal suddenly made the car worth 30% less on the used market, well, that's what the consumer is owed.
VW should be forced to buy-back at original transaction price all of these cars, as no owner will be satisfied by the performance of the cars post-retrofit.
That doesn't make any sense - the car worked as promised (except for the extra emissions) for the time the driver's used it. If anything they should have to buy back the car at its current resale value, but even that is pushing it.
Except that's not what they're doing at all. They're asking that Google censor the results on all of its domains when accessed from within France. They don't care about search results on google.com outside of France.
The obvious solution for Google is to make all of their non-European domains redirect to European ones when accessed from within the EU. Google is intentionally breaking the law because of their stance on censorship. That may or may not be a good thing depending on your view, but that is what is happening here.
What is definitely *not* happening is France trying to enforce its laws outside of France - the headline and article are intentionally misleading.
Or higher wages for those jobs. They may be unskilled jobs, but if nobody wants to do them they should still pay well. Until robots can do them that is.
Do you have a source for this? Because I just don't believe it. 30-40k credits? Which manufacturer could make money buying credits at that price? Ferrari?
I agree the "pretend to be driving" bit is ridiculous, and I doubt that part will last or be enforced. It makes much more sense to just have the car clearly labeled as a self driving car on the outside, just like student drivers.
This would be better than wrong regulation. No regulation means that each car company is exposed to civil liabilities and brand damage, which is all the incentive they need to keep things pretty safe.
You could make exactly the same argument with respect to human drivers and driver's licenses - that you don't need licenses because each person is exposed to civil liabilities and has a personal reputation. Yet we still require humans to be licensed to drive, and that's when we know the failure modes very well. We have no idea what the failure modes might be for some new algorithm. We can't just release them into the wild all willy-nilly and hope for the best.
Yes, regulation slows progress to a degree. That's fine - it is both a feature and a bug. Self driving cars don't need to be here tomorrow. Why not take our time and do it right, rather than rush it and run the risk of deploying the technology before it's ready?
It's not really that crazy when you consider their gross revenue of 10 billion, absurd profit margin (all they do I run an app, right?) and massive potential to expand into new markets.
You don't seem to get it either. If you can increase your profit by raising prices, you should do it, regardless of the tax rate. Yes, we understand your point that at some level taxation lowers ROI to the point that it's not worth it to invest. Nobody is suggesting the tax rate should be that high.
Actually it's even worse than that 178 gallons per capita per day ~ 670 liters. A lot of that is probably due to watering lawns though, something you don't need to do much in the UK I imagine. Swimming pool evaporation is another one you don't have much of.
I wonder where the rest of the difference goes? Less efficient clothes and dish washing machines maybe?
get back to being a government, not a sociology project.
What does this even mean? Isn't any government a sociology project?
we all see government waste every single day, why would anyone want to give them more money?
Waste is everywhere. In fact, Americans in general are the moste wasteful people in the world. Just look at their energy consumption and refuse production per capita. Just because government is wasteful doesn't mean that we should just abandon it completely. Many of our government services (protection, education, utilities, law enforcement...) we don't have a more efficient alternative for. Yes, you can privatize them, but only at the expense of losing control over them.
Also, private doesn't necessarily mean more efficient. Just look at the US's health care system. It is far less cost-efficient than the public systems of Europe.
Well, 150 years is 6-8 human generations, so while selection certainly *could* happen, it would really have to be very strong to be observed. As in "tall Dutch people have twice as many healthy offspring".
Indeed, the reason hedonic and imputed values are added to the GDP - together about $6 trillion - or a spare Japan - is to keep the debt/GDP near 100%.
Or maybe it's because (in the case of imputed) we need to quantify the value of someone owning their home and living in it. Consider that if everyone owned a home, but rented it to someone else (and rented a home for themselves with the proceeds) , you would have the exact same situation as if everyone just lived in their own home. Except that without imputed value the latter would contribute nothing to GDP, while the former would contribute massively.
To remove the (artificial) fluctuations from people switching from ownership to renting, we just calculate it as if everyone was renting.
In the end all that really matters is that you calculate GDP consistently from year to year - and including hedonic and imputed values makes our measurements more consistent. All that matters is the trend.
Of course, given that the US economy is in about as bad a shape as that of Greece (scaled by the population) and for similar reasons, you may be exactly right.
You can't be serious. Greece's debt to gdp ratio is 175% - the USA's is 100%. USA unemployment is 5.5%, Greece's unemployment is 26%. TWENTY SIX PERCENT.
The USA has some economic issues, sure, but comparing them to Greece is just idiotic. Extremely idiotic.
1. If I place seven orders a day, I alone have monopolized a driver and his vehicle for an entire work shift if the distribution center is 30 minutes away from me. That's the labor cost and vehicle cost for an entire day that my orders must pay for in "shipping".
Only if there are no other deliveries to be made anywhere near you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it doesn't make any sense to give back the full value of a car after five years. It's just stupid, and you know very well it's stupid. The car is not worth that much - not even close. All a consumer could really hope for would be to get the value of the difference in value of the car before and after this information was released. If this scandal suddenly made the car worth 30% less on the used market, well, that's what the consumer is owed.
VW should be forced to buy-back at original transaction price all of these cars, as no owner will be satisfied by the performance of the cars post-retrofit.
That doesn't make any sense - the car worked as promised (except for the extra emissions) for the time the driver's used it. If anything they should have to buy back the car at its current resale value, but even that is pushing it.
Except it's not because of the ludicrous amount of fuel you burn to move that hunk of steel a mile.
The obvious solution for Google is to make all of their non-European domains redirect to European ones when accessed from within the EU. Google is intentionally breaking the law because of their stance on censorship. That may or may not be a good thing depending on your view, but that is what is happening here.
What is definitely *not* happening is France trying to enforce its laws outside of France - the headline and article are intentionally misleading.
Actually, in this case yes, the government is allowed to do it - police cars already do it. The question is one of degree.
Or higher wages for those jobs. They may be unskilled jobs, but if nobody wants to do them they should still pay well. Until robots can do them that is.
Do you have a source for this? Because I just don't believe it. 30-40k credits? Which manufacturer could make money buying credits at that price? Ferrari?
It's an even bigger travesty that a party with a mere 4.7% of the votes got a massive 56 seats.
Is it though? They won essentially all of Scotland. Having 8.6% of the MPs seems fairly reasonable.
I agree the "pretend to be driving" bit is ridiculous, and I doubt that part will last or be enforced. It makes much more sense to just have the car clearly labeled as a self driving car on the outside, just like student drivers.
This would be better than wrong regulation. No regulation means that each car company is exposed to civil liabilities and brand damage, which is all the incentive they need to keep things pretty safe.
You could make exactly the same argument with respect to human drivers and driver's licenses - that you don't need licenses because each person is exposed to civil liabilities and has a personal reputation. Yet we still require humans to be licensed to drive, and that's when we know the failure modes very well. We have no idea what the failure modes might be for some new algorithm. We can't just release them into the wild all willy-nilly and hope for the best.
Yes, regulation slows progress to a degree. That's fine - it is both a feature and a bug. Self driving cars don't need to be here tomorrow. Why not take our time and do it right, rather than rush it and run the risk of deploying the technology before it's ready?
Yes, government can't predict the future. Neither can anyone else. We also can't have unregulated self driving cars on public roads either.
It's not really that crazy when you consider their gross revenue of 10 billion, absurd profit margin (all they do I run an app, right?) and massive potential to expand into new markets.
You don't seem to get it either. If you can increase your profit by raising prices, you should do it, regardless of the tax rate. Yes, we understand your point that at some level taxation lowers ROI to the point that it's not worth it to invest. Nobody is suggesting the tax rate should be that high.
I don't see any point in looking at the estimated cost of a project that hasn't even begun yet.
Pretty sure it's someone testing out a bot. At least I hope so.
I wonder where the rest of the difference goes? Less efficient clothes and dish washing machines maybe?
didn't address the biggest reason people actually own cars, the personal freedom and enjoyment of operating them.
This isn't the biggest reason people actually own cars. People own cars because they need to get to work.
get back to being a government, not a sociology project.
What does this even mean? Isn't any government a sociology project?
we all see government waste every single day, why would anyone want to give them more money?
Waste is everywhere. In fact, Americans in general are the moste wasteful people in the world. Just look at their energy consumption and refuse production per capita. Just because government is wasteful doesn't mean that we should just abandon it completely. Many of our government services (protection, education, utilities, law enforcement...) we don't have a more efficient alternative for. Yes, you can privatize them, but only at the expense of losing control over them.
Also, private doesn't necessarily mean more efficient. Just look at the US's health care system. It is far less cost-efficient than the public systems of Europe.
Are Americans evolving to be more "Latin" since Latin birthrates in the US is higher than other ethnicities?
If you want to think of "American" as a sub-species, then yes, Americans are definitely becoming more Latin.
Well, 150 years is 6-8 human generations, so while selection certainly *could* happen, it would really have to be very strong to be observed. As in "tall Dutch people have twice as many healthy offspring".
Indeed, the reason hedonic and imputed values are added to the GDP - together about $6 trillion - or a spare Japan - is to keep the debt/GDP near 100%.
Or maybe it's because (in the case of imputed) we need to quantify the value of someone owning their home and living in it. Consider that if everyone owned a home, but rented it to someone else (and rented a home for themselves with the proceeds) , you would have the exact same situation as if everyone just lived in their own home. Except that without imputed value the latter would contribute nothing to GDP, while the former would contribute massively.
To remove the (artificial) fluctuations from people switching from ownership to renting, we just calculate it as if everyone was renting.
In the end all that really matters is that you calculate GDP consistently from year to year - and including hedonic and imputed values makes our measurements more consistent. All that matters is the trend.
...because there are none of those in Greece? Not to mention, 12% is *still* less than half of Greece.
Of course, given that the US economy is in about as bad a shape as that of Greece (scaled by the population) and for similar reasons, you may be exactly right.
You can't be serious. Greece's debt to gdp ratio is 175% - the USA's is 100%. USA unemployment is 5.5%, Greece's unemployment is 26%. TWENTY SIX PERCENT.
The USA has some economic issues, sure, but comparing them to Greece is just idiotic. Extremely idiotic.
In Seoul, a whopping 96.5% of 19-year-old men are short-sighted.
Say what you want about fear-mongering, that's a pretty crazy statistic. Sounds like I should invest in some Korean laser correction company.
1. If I place seven orders a day, I alone have monopolized a driver and his vehicle for an entire work shift if the distribution center is 30 minutes away from me. That's the labor cost and vehicle cost for an entire day that my orders must pay for in "shipping".
Only if there are no other deliveries to be made anywhere near you.