Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Then have them pay up front. You want to buy a TV. Here's a $30 charge on top of the cost of the television for disposal. You buy a box of K-CUP, here's a $0.15 per cup eco fee. Same goes for any consumables.
Consuming isn't a right, it's a privilege and if we want to keep it we have to invest in the cycle of life for these materials or we can do like we also do and wait until it's a much more difficult problem to resolve.
I think charging upfront is probably the easiest means to solving the budgeting issue and cause consumer/manufacturer to adjust.
Asking people to sort materials is pointless. It didn't work before and it won't work now. A better strategy would be to entice manufacturers to find better packaging solutions. I look at the K-CUP shit and it makes me mad. Same goes for water bottles. Most people I see are just to damn lazy to carry around a reusable water bottle (it's too inconvenient). Well guess what, double the price of water bottles and all of sudden there's an incentive to use the reusable bottles.
At the end of the day the only way to change consumer behavior is to have it impact their pocket book. This usually causes people to adjust their ways and companies to become more innovative.
It's really irrelevant that it's the computer deciding. Their policy is flawed right from the beginning. They wanted to make it black and white. Sorry to say but there aren't many things that are black and white when it comes to justice..
IMHO the only time a company should reassign a URL or name is when the original taker was doing it to ransom the large company. Most large companies are reasonable and will offer compensation within reason. Maybe I'm old school but I've never been fan of those who hold people/companies ransom.
Out with the honor system and in with factual data. This is what has happened to our society. We are ok with this because we don't trust anybody and it will only get worst.
I personally hate where this is all going but too many people aren't honorable anymore.
No accountability = no honor = nobody is trust worthy. That simple!
Great write-up. I have a boy and girl. I was raised in a house with 3 male and 1 female (mom).
For me the most important thing I can teach my daughter is not that she can/can't do boy things but rather that she should not let others influence choices she is clear about. I don't want my daughter to think she can't do something but she also needs to use her smarts and figure out what is best for her.
I think our society has grown significantly in regards to where women can go and I don't believe women avoid IT because of the male dominance but rather because they aren't interested. Don't forget that they are wired differently hence their different interest. I didn't teach my daughter to like princesses and dancing, yet that's what she prefers over super hero and cars. Question is: "is that influence coming from other girls at school?"
As long as we punish harassment and include both genders in all activities we will provide equality regardless of gender specific preferences.
I've always seen polls as one of two things: - A tool for each party to know where they stand with their current agenda - An unneeded influence on those unsure how they want to vote. Human nature tends to make the uncertain vote for the potential winner.
And that insurance is a *lot* lower than comprehensive insurance on a regular car. That is exactly my point.
It's proportional to the risk.
You seem to be missing the whole point of automation. Everything has sensors so any anomaly can result in an automated return-to-base for inspection. If you do robot cars properly, there is no need for user interaction at any point other than the input of a destination address
Am I arguing with a 16 year old? This is the kind of answer I would expect someone to write that has no past life experience or has no clue about engineering and more specifically mechanical engineering. Do you have any idea of the cost implications? Are we building an airplane here? Just like current vehicles there is a certain amount of risk that the general population accepts to keep things affordable.
If the device has been serviced as per instructions, the manufacturer is liable. this is commonplace today
Exactly. If serviced as per instructions. So what happens otherwise? Building liability insurance kicks in. Looks like I'm right again.
Only building owners of public spaces which is less specific to the elevator and more to do with general liability. I know someone with a lift in his house, he doesn't have any special insurance for it.
It's not specific to anything. It's a number of things that make up the cost of liability and elevators are part of that equation.
The lift is covered under the house liability. It's also why your house liability goes up if you own a woodstove or a pool.
Yeah but Linux developers will use C++. It wouldn't be very friendly to the Linux Dev community if the framework wasn't C++ compatible especially since it's the most used language for app dev on Linux.
Like any statistic, it must be compared to something. In this case C# is being compared with other languages that have been riding the mobile device market. With MS's mobile market share being what it is it's not surprising that C# is appearing to have weaker growth compared to say C++,Java...
At the end of the day C# is just another way to write code. If you are good at reading/writing code it doesn't matter what language it's in. My strongest language is C# because it's what I've done for the last 8 years non stop. SQL is probably my second. C++, VB, assembly, JavaScript, HTML are also languages I'm very versed with and read/write almost just as easy as C#.
If a manufacturing fault causes the oven to catch fire and burn your house down then yes, they are liable, and yes they have public liability insurance that covers this.
The insurance that covers this is "Product Insurance". The house insurance is what will pay for the damages even if the oven caused the fire. If the product causes the fire due to reckless engineering the company can be held liable and the product insurance will pay after a trial
And in this case the oven is still operated by the end user, so it's not a suitable analogy.
So why do houses have liability insurance? Because the residents can do dumb stuff. If you overload a self driving car beyond it's capacity there's no reasonable amount of engineering that will prevent a failure. What about driving a vehicle that isn't road worthy? Bad ties rods, bad brakes... list goes on.
You don't seem to understand the difference with a fully automated device. An robot car, like an elevator, is an automated vehicle.
I do, but you are missing the fact that the automated part doesn't mean you don't have influence on the outcome. If you overload an elevator it will fail. There's a warning so who's liable? Robot cars are still at the merci of the people inside.
If you press the 5th floor on an elevator and the elevator drove you into an opposing lift shaft and killed somebody, you bet you're ass that elevator company would be liable.
After an investigation that proves this was actually the company's fault. If it was reckless then you are correct, product insurance will once again pay. What if a bug fried the circuits causing this? Who's liable now and who pays?
Last time I checked no-one takes out elevator insurance despite millions of people using them each day.
No, because your not the owner of said machine. The building owner has liability insurance for that reason.
Your seeing self driving cars different than drive assist and you should not. They are the same.
Crap. Cruise Control and ABS are still end-user controlled technology
So is self driving cars. You enable it when you need it. You don't control when ABS kicks in and if it fails and causes an accident it's no different then the self driving car failing and crashing. It's technology that when properly integrated finds a small percentage of failure or offers redundancy such as ABS breaking systems or your steering.
Same goes for cruise control. You don't control the throttle.
Cheaper insurance for the end user, but the liability and therefore cost is simply transferred to the manufacturer, so you still pay for it through higher priced vehicles.
Only eventually and that remains to be proven. Until then it's still on the driver. Most house fires in North America are caused by cooking ovens. Do you see oven manufacturers paying for your house fire insurance? The answer is NO! They QC their product, have them certified (no different than car manufacturers) and then sell the product. If there's a mass issue, a recall is issue (no different than car manufacturers). That's how it's been for a long time and it will continue to be like that.
So liability insurance is a collective pool. Each person pays based on their risk level. Young drivers pay more because they are statistically more prone to being involved in an accident. You also pay less for certain types of vehicles. So as statistics are collected for self driving cars, prices will go down. Will the liability disappear? Probably not as long as the car is susceptible to human behavior.
The liability for the manufacturer is far too great in this day and age for it ever to be cost effective.
These same arguments were discussed when ABS and Cruise control were introduced. The only difference is that it was discussed by writers in magazines instead of on the internet.
Manufacturers don't appear to really be afraid of this new technology. They are already implementing self driving features available in car being purchased as we speak. Manufacturers will continue to be liable the same way they are right now. Insurance cost won't go down immediately especially that most of these vehicles will have a manual driving option.
People will buy the cars for convenience and eventually the whole dynamic will change towards a new way of doing. Once stats on accidents show a decrease in incidents, the result will be cheaper insurance.
In my years in this shitty fucking business, there are a lot of BS artists who get away with bullshit because the IT/engineering industry is almost exclusively filled with people who are afraid of appearing 'stupid' to say he looks naked and charlatans get away with selling shit.
Lol @ that. I'm not one to say it's a shitty business because I actually enjoy what I do. Putting aside the skillset and experience required to build secure applications and systems there is still lots of extra time required to do so which translates into $$$$ or late delivery. The biggest problem with security is ignorance. People at the top of the food chain within or outside tech departments tend to see it as an unneeded expenditure until they get hit (E.g. Sony).
It is our responsibility (the techs and tech leaders) to present to them the risk and dangers ignoring security. Over the years I've developed two simple questions to help me convince even the most resilient leaders: 1. Do you have any sensitive data you wouldn't shared with just anybody (be ready to list data stored locally that you consider sensitive)? 2. Can your company survive if all the data on the in-house servers disappears overnight?
Almost every single company will answer YES to at least one of these questions. As an IT professional you need to come ready to answer questions about what the risks are, the solutions and the cost. Obviously the SMB will most probably agree to a strategy that is less robust than the one for a large enterprise.
You are talking about product insurance which will need to be increased significantly to cover this as there are too many unknowns at the moment.
This means manufacturer buys insurance for X dollars per vehicle. Vehicle cost goes up by X * 1.4. You pay X * 1.4 * tax at purchase for the same insurance.
You could have been paying X * tax but instead your now paying 40% more for the same thing. When you make it someone else's problem keep in mind that you always pay for it.
"tailored for everybody" is logically identical to "tailored for nobody".
I don't know if your quoting someone on this but it makes little to no sense. I guess cars are tailored for nobody, monitors, keyboards... The list goes on.
Perhaps what you're missing is that people aren't objecting to the inclusion of the functionality. They're objecting to the manner in which is was incorporated. If this Pocket stuff had been shipped as an add-on, nobody would be complaining
And that's why I talked about purist mentality. I'm not suggesting I agree with their approach but the knee jerk reaction is one of purist nature. Not everybody here or on the forums have commented in a knee jerk reaction but many have and that stands out.
And the beauty of it all is that you have to power to choose which browser you want to use. If enough users say screw FF, then they either sink with their mentality or adjust and revive it's popularity.
I completely agree. There are some things if said in a public forum are just poor judgment where as others are the crow performing the well known knee jerk reaction.
With social media I find too much knee jerking. They only have a few pieces of the puzzle and all of a sudden they have a strong opinion about it. That's the bit that gets me. There's some of that on/. but at least those voices usually get silenced because there are many smart people that actually do their leg work on this site and mod them down when required.
I'm sure it will improve but it will always be hard to shut down the 17 year old self proclaimed computer guru that claims to have seen it all and want the world to know how he feel abut every topic.
Asus Maximus VI Gene i7-4770 16GB RAM Samsung EVO SSD Some ATI mid range graphic card 2x24" monitor
I don't fiddle with the settings but I keep my drivers/BIOS updated. I don't see the point of overclocking and then suspecting it as a possible cause of issues. It's a work machine and I don't need that kind of doubt.
I replace my setup every 2-3 years. I figure my time is worth far more than the cost of a computer so I stay up to date.
Good managers know or learn how to deal with both genders. Men and women have different views of the world and it's important that is taken into consideration when dealing with staff. If you cry when taking feedback and the right approach was taken, it's time to have a big talk. If that doesn't work there's always the door.
He observed something that some of us have actually seen but not spoken about. Men and women are different. Who knew?
To suggest splitting them in a lab is ridiculous but that doesn't eliminate the fact that his observations/statements are reality in all work environments where both genders reside.
Should he really be stoned to death for speaking of this? Is it because he talked about women in the work place because I noticed him mentioning both genders? If he's not allowed to speak about gender differences then all hope is lost for the feminist case. After all don't they just want to be seen as another worker in the work place?
And that's a dangerous game to play. Do you really want the manufacturer between you and your insurance company? It's just another excuse to inflate price for the added protection and make a margin on it when selling you a car. After all I don't expect the manufacturer to take the risk.
The fact is that reduced number of accidents will reduce the cost of insurance, not technology. The by-product of technology in this case happens to be reduced insurance cost in the long run, but stats need to be collected before this happens.
To expect your insurance to be lowered just because you purchase a car that hasn't proven itself yet is rubbish.
Slashdot Mirror
Then have them pay up front. You want to buy a TV. Here's a $30 charge on top of the cost of the television for disposal. You buy a box of K-CUP, here's a $0.15 per cup eco fee. Same goes for any consumables.
Consuming isn't a right, it's a privilege and if we want to keep it we have to invest in the cycle of life for these materials or we can do like we also do and wait until it's a much more difficult problem to resolve.
I think charging upfront is probably the easiest means to solving the budgeting issue and cause consumer/manufacturer to adjust.
Asking people to sort materials is pointless. It didn't work before and it won't work now. A better strategy would be to entice manufacturers to find better packaging solutions. I look at the K-CUP shit and it makes me mad. Same goes for water bottles. Most people I see are just to damn lazy to carry around a reusable water bottle (it's too inconvenient). Well guess what, double the price of water bottles and all of sudden there's an incentive to use the reusable bottles.
At the end of the day the only way to change consumer behavior is to have it impact their pocket book. This usually causes people to adjust their ways and companies to become more innovative.
It's really irrelevant that it's the computer deciding. Their policy is flawed right from the beginning. They wanted to make it black and white. Sorry to say but there aren't many things that are black and white when it comes to justice..
And they would deserve a boycott but who boycotts these days? Nobody has the will power to do it.
Exactly.
IMHO the only time a company should reassign a URL or name is when the original taker was doing it to ransom the large company. Most large companies are reasonable and will offer compensation within reason. Maybe I'm old school but I've never been fan of those who hold people/companies ransom.
Out with the honor system and in with factual data. This is what has happened to our society. We are ok with this because we don't trust anybody and it will only get worst.
I personally hate where this is all going but too many people aren't honorable anymore.
No accountability = no honor = nobody is trust worthy. That simple!
Great write-up. I have a boy and girl. I was raised in a house with 3 male and 1 female (mom).
For me the most important thing I can teach my daughter is not that she can/can't do boy things but rather that she should not let others influence choices she is clear about. I don't want my daughter to think she can't do something but she also needs to use her smarts and figure out what is best for her.
I think our society has grown significantly in regards to where women can go and I don't believe women avoid IT because of the male dominance but rather because they aren't interested. Don't forget that they are wired differently hence their different interest. I didn't teach my daughter to like princesses and dancing, yet that's what she prefers over super hero and cars. Question is: "is that influence coming from other girls at school?"
As long as we punish harassment and include both genders in all activities we will provide equality regardless of gender specific preferences.
I've always seen polls as one of two things:
- A tool for each party to know where they stand with their current agenda
- An unneeded influence on those unsure how they want to vote. Human nature tends to make the uncertain vote for the potential winner.
In my experience the following is the order of priority:
- Cost
- Delivery Date
- Security.
Security isn't a concern until it is.
And that insurance is a *lot* lower than comprehensive insurance on a regular car. That is exactly my point.
It's proportional to the risk.
You seem to be missing the whole point of automation. Everything has sensors so any anomaly can result in an automated return-to-base for inspection. If you do robot cars properly, there is no need for user interaction at any point other than the input of a destination address
Am I arguing with a 16 year old? This is the kind of answer I would expect someone to write that has no past life experience or has no clue about engineering and more specifically mechanical engineering. Do you have any idea of the cost implications? Are we building an airplane here? Just like current vehicles there is a certain amount of risk that the general population accepts to keep things affordable.
If the device has been serviced as per instructions, the manufacturer is liable. this is commonplace today
Exactly. If serviced as per instructions. So what happens otherwise? Building liability insurance kicks in. Looks like I'm right again.
Only building owners of public spaces which is less specific to the elevator and more to do with general liability. I know someone with a lift in his house, he doesn't have any special insurance for it.
It's not specific to anything. It's a number of things that make up the cost of liability and elevators are part of that equation.
The lift is covered under the house liability. It's also why your house liability goes up if you own a woodstove or a pool.
Most C# developer I've met over the years search without the C# tag like I do. I'll do something like this: ".NET copy filestream to memorystream".
Yeah but Linux developers will use C++. It wouldn't be very friendly to the Linux Dev community if the framework wasn't C++ compatible especially since it's the most used language for app dev on Linux.
Like any statistic, it must be compared to something. In this case C# is being compared with other languages that have been riding the mobile device market. With MS's mobile market share being what it is it's not surprising that C# is appearing to have weaker growth compared to say C++,Java...
At the end of the day C# is just another way to write code. If you are good at reading/writing code it doesn't matter what language it's in. My strongest language is C# because it's what I've done for the last 8 years non stop. SQL is probably my second. C++, VB, assembly, JavaScript, HTML are also languages I'm very versed with and read/write almost just as easy as C#.
If a manufacturing fault causes the oven to catch fire and burn your house down then yes, they are liable, and yes they have public liability insurance that covers this.
The insurance that covers this is "Product Insurance". The house insurance is what will pay for the damages even if the oven caused the fire. If the product causes the fire due to reckless engineering the company can be held liable and the product insurance will pay after a trial
And in this case the oven is still operated by the end user, so it's not a suitable analogy.
So why do houses have liability insurance? Because the residents can do dumb stuff. If you overload a self driving car beyond it's capacity there's no reasonable amount of engineering that will prevent a failure. What about driving a vehicle that isn't road worthy? Bad ties rods, bad brakes... list goes on.
You don't seem to understand the difference with a fully automated device. An robot car, like an elevator, is an automated vehicle.
I do, but you are missing the fact that the automated part doesn't mean you don't have influence on the outcome. If you overload an elevator it will fail. There's a warning so who's liable? Robot cars are still at the merci of the people inside.
If you press the 5th floor on an elevator and the elevator drove you into an opposing lift shaft and killed somebody, you bet you're ass that elevator company would be liable.
After an investigation that proves this was actually the company's fault. If it was reckless then you are correct, product insurance will once again pay. What if a bug fried the circuits causing this? Who's liable now and who pays?
Last time I checked no-one takes out elevator insurance despite millions of people using them each day.
No, because your not the owner of said machine. The building owner has liability insurance for that reason.
Your seeing self driving cars different than drive assist and you should not. They are the same.
Crap. Cruise Control and ABS are still end-user controlled technology
So is self driving cars. You enable it when you need it. You don't control when ABS kicks in and if it fails and causes an accident it's no different then the self driving car failing and crashing. It's technology that when properly integrated finds a small percentage of failure or offers redundancy such as ABS breaking systems or your steering.
Same goes for cruise control. You don't control the throttle.
Cheaper insurance for the end user, but the liability and therefore cost is simply transferred to the manufacturer, so you still pay for it through higher priced vehicles.
Only eventually and that remains to be proven. Until then it's still on the driver. Most house fires in North America are caused by cooking ovens. Do you see oven manufacturers paying for your house fire insurance? The answer is NO! They QC their product, have them certified (no different than car manufacturers) and then sell the product. If there's a mass issue, a recall is issue (no different than car manufacturers). That's how it's been for a long time and it will continue to be like that.
So liability insurance is a collective pool. Each person pays based on their risk level. Young drivers pay more because they are statistically more prone to being involved in an accident. You also pay less for certain types of vehicles. So as statistics are collected for self driving cars, prices will go down. Will the liability disappear? Probably not as long as the car is susceptible to human behavior.
You nailed it. Bravo!!
The liability for the manufacturer is far too great in this day and age for it ever to be cost effective.
These same arguments were discussed when ABS and Cruise control were introduced. The only difference is that it was discussed by writers in magazines instead of on the internet.
Manufacturers don't appear to really be afraid of this new technology. They are already implementing self driving features available in car being purchased as we speak. Manufacturers will continue to be liable the same way they are right now. Insurance cost won't go down immediately especially that most of these vehicles will have a manual driving option.
People will buy the cars for convenience and eventually the whole dynamic will change towards a new way of doing. Once stats on accidents show a decrease in incidents, the result will be cheaper insurance.
In my years in this shitty fucking business, there are a lot of BS artists who get away with bullshit because the IT/engineering industry is almost exclusively filled with people who are afraid of appearing 'stupid' to say he looks naked and charlatans get away with selling shit.
Lol @ that. I'm not one to say it's a shitty business because I actually enjoy what I do. Putting aside the skillset and experience required to build secure applications and systems there is still lots of extra time required to do so which translates into $$$$ or late delivery. The biggest problem with security is ignorance. People at the top of the food chain within or outside tech departments tend to see it as an unneeded expenditure until they get hit (E.g. Sony).
It is our responsibility (the techs and tech leaders) to present to them the risk and dangers ignoring security. Over the years I've developed two simple questions to help me convince even the most resilient leaders:
1. Do you have any sensitive data you wouldn't shared with just anybody (be ready to list data stored locally that you consider sensitive)?
2. Can your company survive if all the data on the in-house servers disappears overnight?
Almost every single company will answer YES to at least one of these questions. As an IT professional you need to come ready to answer questions about what the risks are, the solutions and the cost. Obviously the SMB will most probably agree to a strategy that is less robust than the one for a large enterprise.
You are talking about product insurance which will need to be increased significantly to cover this as there are too many unknowns at the moment.
This means manufacturer buys insurance for X dollars per vehicle. Vehicle cost goes up by X * 1.4. You pay X * 1.4 * tax at purchase for the same insurance.
You could have been paying X * tax but instead your now paying 40% more for the same thing. When you make it someone else's problem keep in mind that you always pay for it.
"tailored for everybody" is logically identical to "tailored for nobody".
I don't know if your quoting someone on this but it makes little to no sense. I guess cars are tailored for nobody, monitors, keyboards... The list goes on.
Perhaps what you're missing is that people aren't objecting to the inclusion of the functionality. They're objecting to the manner in which is was incorporated. If this Pocket stuff had been shipped as an add-on, nobody would be complaining
And that's why I talked about purist mentality. I'm not suggesting I agree with their approach but the knee jerk reaction is one of purist nature. Not everybody here or on the forums have commented in a knee jerk reaction but many have and that stands out.
And the beauty of it all is that you have to power to choose which browser you want to use. If enough users say screw FF, then they either sink with their mentality or adjust and revive it's popularity.
I completely agree. There are some things if said in a public forum are just poor judgment where as others are the crow performing the well known knee jerk reaction.
With social media I find too much knee jerking. They only have a few pieces of the puzzle and all of a sudden they have a strong opinion about it. That's the bit that gets me. There's some of that on /. but at least those voices usually get silenced because there are many smart people that actually do their leg work on this site and mod them down when required.
I'm sure it will improve but it will always be hard to shut down the 17 year old self proclaimed computer guru that claims to have seen it all and want the world to know how he feel abut every topic.
Asus Maximus VI Gene
i7-4770
16GB RAM
Samsung EVO SSD
Some ATI mid range graphic card
2x24" monitor
I don't fiddle with the settings but I keep my drivers/BIOS updated. I don't see the point of overclocking and then suspecting it as a possible cause of issues. It's a work machine and I don't need that kind of doubt.
I replace my setup every 2-3 years. I figure my time is worth far more than the cost of a computer so I stay up to date.
Good managers know or learn how to deal with both genders. Men and women have different views of the world and it's important that is taken into consideration when dealing with staff. If you cry when taking feedback and the right approach was taken, it's time to have a big talk. If that doesn't work there's always the door.
He observed something that some of us have actually seen but not spoken about. Men and women are different. Who knew?
To suggest splitting them in a lab is ridiculous but that doesn't eliminate the fact that his observations/statements are reality in all work environments where both genders reside.
Should he really be stoned to death for speaking of this? Is it because he talked about women in the work place because I noticed him mentioning both genders? If he's not allowed to speak about gender differences then all hope is lost for the feminist case. After all don't they just want to be seen as another worker in the work place?
And that's a dangerous game to play. Do you really want the manufacturer between you and your insurance company? It's just another excuse to inflate price for the added protection and make a margin on it when selling you a car. After all I don't expect the manufacturer to take the risk.
The fact is that reduced number of accidents will reduce the cost of insurance, not technology. The by-product of technology in this case happens to be reduced insurance cost in the long run, but stats need to be collected before this happens.
To expect your insurance to be lowered just because you purchase a car that hasn't proven itself yet is rubbish.