On the contrary, I could easily afford a "nicer" car. I have chosen to drive something that takes into account that I'm not the only person in the world. You should explore the concept.
The CTS is a step in the right direction, but the mileage could be better. The base model does a claimed 20city/30highway. So, you can probably expect 23, 24. I expect you could find a less expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicle that had all those toys. The memory seat stuff is cool though.
The first is, "I want to enjoy the nicer vehicle all year long".
That's a "want" not a "need". Get over it.
There are many times having more space comes in handy, not just on road trips. Bringing home bikes for the kids, taking stuff to school for parties (my wife is a room mother and often has to take stuff to school), taking an extra kid or two places.
There isn't anything there you can't do with a Civic, or a Golf, or etc.
Most of the major companies do have a handful of Suburbans for rent, I just checked Alamo and Thrifty, both have a Suburban LS for rent for about $1,000 for a week. Both have cloth seats, no technology, 2WD, etc.
Oh poor me! I can't have leather seats! I can't have a 4WD system that does nothing but add weight and give me the false sense of security that it will help me slow down faster!
You'll live.
Yea, thanks but no thanks. I pay about that price per month for my Yukon XL Denali and it is loaded with everything and I enjoy driving it every day. You can keep your little econobox, it doesn't work for me.
You don't get it. You don't see that you're being massive spoiled self-centered selfish asshole. You have put your own wants over the needs of others, for no other reason than that you can.
Dude sounds like a crank. For example: this article raises a number of red flags for me. One, he references his own work as the sole basis for a conclusion, and two, he whines like a 5 year old:
Since, as usual, none of the above authors reference the voluminous evidence that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies, there is very little chance of conventional astronomy correcting a huge error in their fundamental assumptions.
Waah! The mean nasty mainstream astronomers won't completely change the field because I said so! Waaah!
Rent an SUV? That's your solution? So I should spend an extra $200 (3 day rental + tax & fees) every time I want to take a trip in addition to my monthly car payment just to make you happy?
How many fucking trips do you take? By not owning the SUV, you can pay for those rentals out of the money you DON'T spend on gas, because you have a vehicle that meets your needs 95% of the time. For the other 5% of the time, you can rent the vehicle that meets your needs.
Let's do the math.
I own a car that gets 35 mpg on average. It meets my needs for commuting to my job. I do about 15,000 miles a year (longish commute). 429 gallons * $2.50/gal gas = $1071 in fuel over a year.
Let's compare that to an SUV that seats 7 (counting your dog as a person). Using the 2015 Mitsubishi Outlander, we see an average claimed mileage of 26 mpg. Assuming that that's a creatively spun lie, the actual mileage you're likely to see is probably about 23 mpg. 652 gallons * $2.50 = $1630 in fuel over the year.
But let's not stop there, let's take a look at your car payment, since you brought it up:
My car cost me $17,000 flat, and I put down about $3500. My payment is $255 or so, or $3060 each year. The Mitsu would cost $23,734 if the Edmunds.com number is realistic. Assuming the same terms as what I got for the loan (1.5% over 60 months), and the same down payment, that payment is $373.52, or $4482.24 each year.
So, gas savings = $559 each year, and lower payments save $1422 each year. Total yearly savings is $1981 a year, and all this is not considering the difference in your auto insurance. So, you could rent an SUV ten times a year and it would be a wash. How many three-day trips do you take?
Also, it's not about my/GP's happiness. Thinking that might make it easier for you to dismiss, but that doesn't make it true.
Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills.
Tough shit. The user has indicated that they do not want to see ads. Give the user what they want or go out of business. Find a different business model.
From that point of view the AdBlock hating sites only want to show you the contents ONLY if you see the advertisements.
Tough shit. I don't care what they want. If they don't give me what I want, I go somewhere else. That's the free market.
Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.
Tough shit. Expect further development of ad blocking technologies to keep up. Eventually the arms race will lead to the abandonment of ad revenue as a source of support. The advertisers and site owners did this to themselves by ratcheting up the obnoxiousness of their ads to the point where people start blocking them or staying away from their site. No sympathy.
Advertising is a blight on society. I can hardly go anywhere without someone trying to sell me car insurance, or legal assistance, or boner pills, or something else I don't want or already have. What the advertisers need to understand is that they do not have an inalienable right to shove ads in my eyeballs. If I want to ignore or block advertising, I have the right to do that. If that drives people out of business, that's fine, because other businesses that don't employ such an obnoxious business model will take up their business.
I hate advertising in all its forms. Don't like that? Go fuck yourself, I don't care what you think.
That's a lot of users to lose. Perhaps they shouldn't be engaging in behavior that drives people away. My eyeballs, my rules, if I don't like what a site does, I don't go back. This is the free market in action. If I don't like how one site presents their content, I go somewhere else.
Cost to build nuclear power plant (Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, Clarington, Ontario, Canada, per Wikipedia): $14.5 billion CAD in 1993, or $11.5 USD adjusted into today's currency Cost to build semiconductor fab (according to Wikipedia): ~$3-4 billion
Solar also gets cheaper over time, as the capital investment at installation is recovered. Payroll costs are also significantly lower. Nuclear, at least in the case of French reactors, gets more expensive over time.
We currently have no way in the USA to store nuclear waste outside of the stations themselves, at any price.
And we still haven't figured out the problem of private ownership; as long as there is a profit motive, every corner WILL be cut in the name of efficiency, safety be damned.
Small problem with nuclear reactors after the apocalypse: I don't trust anyone to operate a nuclear reactor safely NOW, especially private industry. For-profit companies have an incentive to sacrifice quality in the name of profits. Then there's the problem of waste storage; There is no precedent for humans to maintain a facility for a long enough period of time for the waste to cease to be dangerous.
There are better ways to go that are much safer. I don't care what you say, nuclear is not the magic bullet. When solar panels have an accident, a panel or two falls off a pylon, and a solar energy spill is known as a "nice day". Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, all of these are orders of magnitude less expensive to build and operate than nuclear reactors. How many people does it take to safely operate a nuclear reactor? Hundreds? Once construction is complete, maintenance of the new facilities is much simpler and can be accomplished with fewer staff. Photo-voltaic solar panels, with no moving parts, are the easiest of all.
Nuclear power is certainly an option. There are much better ones. All the energy we would ever need is pouring down on our surface from a nuclear reactor 93 million miles away. The difference between a fission plant and a fusion reactor millions of miles away is that nobody can get to the fusion reactor to skimp on safety.
In other words: do not look for a technical solution for a social problem.
If we can use technology to overcome the social problems, we're halfway there. This will probably involve some arm-twisting, but IMHO some arms need twisting (and breaking) if we are ever to avoid the second Dark Age that seems to be on the horizon, at least in the USA. Some elected officials have been overtly advocating for a theocracy, insisting that the USA is a "Christian" nation, that the separation of church and state is not guaranteed by the Constitution or any other early documents. They're wrong, of course, as the Founding Fathers thought that government having no role in religion (and vice versa) was so important that it's the first phrase in the Bill of Rights.
TL;DR: Technology must force social change or we will never get anywhere.
Not racism. I was describing the fact that compared to the USA, the places that a lot of these folks come from are much worse places to live, which is part of the reason they come here on H1-Bs.
And I'm not sure where you are working, but SW engineering salaries have quite literally exploded over the past 5 years or so. It's not at all uncommon to see $400-500k+ offers (including benefits) these days
Will they go out of business if you leave? Will they suddenly be unable to see a doctor, or pay the mortgage, or be unable to find work due to the fact that they were fired or are currently unemployed?
It's good planning on your part to have a cushion built up. But most people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are at most 3 or 4 paychecks away from bankruptcy. Your employer has a much greater ability to trash your entire lifestyle than you do to take the business down (especially if you no longer work there). You'll be buried in legal paper if you try.
When you allow them to act soley in their best interests, the world falls apart, because people are stupid selfish greedy short-sighted morons that would just as soon everyone else died so that they can get what they want. What people think is in their own self-interest is actually working against them, because they think that others must stop getting what is in THEIR self interest in order to get what they want. You get a race to the bottom where the only thing that happens is society is destroyed.
If they're on food stamps, they're obviously immoral horrible evil people and should all just die. At least that's what one side of the aisle would like you to think.
The companies that complain they can't hire the talent they need are really saying that hiring the talent they need would eat into the profits.
FTFY. Corporate profits are at all-time highs, companies are sitting on piles of cash that they COULD spend on salaries to ensure they attract top talent, but they'd rather spend it on lobbying for more H1-B visas.
Again, as has been covered on/. extensively, there is no shortage of American STEM graduates. Employers would rather bring over H1-Bs from Thirdworldhellholistan that they can pay 50% as much and work 100% harder. When you're not a citizen, and can be sent back pretty much at any time, you do what you're told instead of asking to be treated like a human being. Employers love that. They identify an H1-B that they can bring over, tailor the skill set for the job requirement such that that specific H1-B holder is the only one on the planet that has it, and then cry about not being able to find a native worker with that set.
1) They can fire you with no notice and no reason at any time. 2) You can quit and walk out with no notice and no stated reason at any time.
On paper, that seems fair. However, it's tilted in the employer's favor because most of the time losing a job is much worse for the employee than it is for the employer.
I'm a salesperson and I am about to get this 5-6 figure comission. You dismiss me with no cause or a bogus one. I can still turn around and sue you for wrongful termination.
That's a little different. In that case your commission would be unpaid wages, and the DOL would be able to get involved.
Most of the time, though, their lawyers can beat up your lawyers.
Sure, they write the checks. But it's the lower classes that do the actual work. Which would be fine, if the lower classes shared in any success the company had.
"Hey, I just created $x that's going to make us a billion dollars!" "Attaboy!"
That's it. The rich get richer off the hard work of other people.
Slashdot Mirror
You want a big company to actually do what it promised it will do? Why do you hate America?
On the contrary, I could easily afford a "nicer" car. I have chosen to drive something that takes into account that I'm not the only person in the world. You should explore the concept.
No I didn't.
The CTS is a step in the right direction, but the mileage could be better. The base model does a claimed 20city/30highway. So, you can probably expect 23, 24. I expect you could find a less expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicle that had all those toys. The memory seat stuff is cool though.
FTFY.
That's a "want" not a "need". Get over it.
There isn't anything there you can't do with a Civic, or a Golf, or etc.
Oh poor me! I can't have leather seats! I can't have a 4WD system that does nothing but add weight and give me the false sense of security that it will help me slow down faster!
You'll live.
You don't get it. You don't see that you're being massive spoiled self-centered selfish asshole. You have put your own wants over the needs of others, for no other reason than that you can.
Citation needed. When was the last time you saw an Escalade off-road?
lol typical teabagger refusing to admit he word-associates "Obama" with "Nigger"
Dude sounds like a crank. For example: this article raises a number of red flags for me. One, he references his own work as the sole basis for a conclusion, and two, he whines like a 5 year old:
Waah! The mean nasty mainstream astronomers won't completely change the field because I said so! Waaah!
How many fucking trips do you take? By not owning the SUV, you can pay for those rentals out of the money you DON'T spend on gas, because you have a vehicle that meets your needs 95% of the time. For the other 5% of the time, you can rent the vehicle that meets your needs.
Let's do the math.
I own a car that gets 35 mpg on average. It meets my needs for commuting to my job. I do about 15,000 miles a year (longish commute). 429 gallons * $2.50/gal gas = $1071 in fuel over a year.
Let's compare that to an SUV that seats 7 (counting your dog as a person). Using the 2015 Mitsubishi Outlander, we see an average claimed mileage of 26 mpg. Assuming that that's a creatively spun lie, the actual mileage you're likely to see is probably about 23 mpg. 652 gallons * $2.50 = $1630 in fuel over the year.
But let's not stop there, let's take a look at your car payment, since you brought it up:
My car cost me $17,000 flat, and I put down about $3500. My payment is $255 or so, or $3060 each year. The Mitsu would cost $23,734 if the Edmunds.com number is realistic. Assuming the same terms as what I got for the loan (1.5% over 60 months), and the same down payment, that payment is $373.52, or $4482.24 each year.
So, gas savings = $559 each year, and lower payments save $1422 each year. Total yearly savings is $1981 a year, and all this is not considering the difference in your auto insurance. So, you could rent an SUV ten times a year and it would be a wash. How many three-day trips do you take?
Also, it's not about my/GP's happiness. Thinking that might make it easier for you to dismiss, but that doesn't make it true.
Tough shit. The user has indicated that they do not want to see ads. Give the user what they want or go out of business. Find a different business model.
Tough shit. I don't care what they want. If they don't give me what I want, I go somewhere else. That's the free market.
Tough shit. Expect further development of ad blocking technologies to keep up. Eventually the arms race will lead to the abandonment of ad revenue as a source of support. The advertisers and site owners did this to themselves by ratcheting up the obnoxiousness of their ads to the point where people start blocking them or staying away from their site. No sympathy.
Advertising is a blight on society. I can hardly go anywhere without someone trying to sell me car insurance, or legal assistance, or boner pills, or something else I don't want or already have. What the advertisers need to understand is that they do not have an inalienable right to shove ads in my eyeballs. If I want to ignore or block advertising, I have the right to do that. If that drives people out of business, that's fine, because other businesses that don't employ such an obnoxious business model will take up their business.
I hate advertising in all its forms. Don't like that? Go fuck yourself, I don't care what you think.
That's a lot of users to lose. Perhaps they shouldn't be engaging in behavior that drives people away. My eyeballs, my rules, if I don't like what a site does, I don't go back. This is the free market in action. If I don't like how one site presents their content, I go somewhere else.
The first Wikipedia link above should give you that, it's specifically about the economics of nuclear power.
Cost to build nuclear power plant (Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, Clarington, Ontario, Canada, per Wikipedia): $14.5 billion CAD in 1993, or $11.5 USD adjusted into today's currency
Cost to build semiconductor fab (according to Wikipedia): ~$3-4 billion
Solar also gets cheaper over time, as the capital investment at installation is recovered. Payroll costs are also significantly lower.
Nuclear, at least in the case of French reactors, gets more expensive over time.
We currently have no way in the USA to store nuclear waste outside of the stations themselves, at any price.
And we still haven't figured out the problem of private ownership; as long as there is a profit motive, every corner WILL be cut in the name of efficiency, safety be damned.
... are you off your meds again? What the fuck are you talking about?
Small problem with nuclear reactors after the apocalypse: I don't trust anyone to operate a nuclear reactor safely NOW, especially private industry. For-profit companies have an incentive to sacrifice quality in the name of profits. Then there's the problem of waste storage; There is no precedent for humans to maintain a facility for a long enough period of time for the waste to cease to be dangerous.
There are better ways to go that are much safer. I don't care what you say, nuclear is not the magic bullet. When solar panels have an accident, a panel or two falls off a pylon, and a solar energy spill is known as a "nice day". Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, all of these are orders of magnitude less expensive to build and operate than nuclear reactors. How many people does it take to safely operate a nuclear reactor? Hundreds? Once construction is complete, maintenance of the new facilities is much simpler and can be accomplished with fewer staff. Photo-voltaic solar panels, with no moving parts, are the easiest of all.
Nuclear power is certainly an option. There are much better ones. All the energy we would ever need is pouring down on our surface from a nuclear reactor 93 million miles away. The difference between a fission plant and a fusion reactor millions of miles away is that nobody can get to the fusion reactor to skimp on safety.
If we can use technology to overcome the social problems, we're halfway there. This will probably involve some arm-twisting, but IMHO some arms need twisting (and breaking) if we are ever to avoid the second Dark Age that seems to be on the horizon, at least in the USA. Some elected officials have been overtly advocating for a theocracy, insisting that the USA is a "Christian" nation, that the separation of church and state is not guaranteed by the Constitution or any other early documents. They're wrong, of course, as the Founding Fathers thought that government having no role in religion (and vice versa) was so important that it's the first phrase in the Bill of Rights.
TL;DR: Technology must force social change or we will never get anywhere.
Not racism. I was describing the fact that compared to the USA, the places that a lot of these folks come from are much worse places to live, which is part of the reason they come here on H1-Bs.
Bullshit.
Will they go out of business if you leave? Will they suddenly be unable to see a doctor, or pay the mortgage, or be unable to find work due to the fact that they were fired or are currently unemployed?
It's good planning on your part to have a cushion built up. But most people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are at most 3 or 4 paychecks away from bankruptcy. Your employer has a much greater ability to trash your entire lifestyle than you do to take the business down (especially if you no longer work there). You'll be buried in legal paper if you try.
When you allow them to act soley in their best interests, the world falls apart, because people are stupid selfish greedy short-sighted morons that would just as soon everyone else died so that they can get what they want. What people think is in their own self-interest is actually working against them, because they think that others must stop getting what is in THEIR self interest in order to get what they want. You get a race to the bottom where the only thing that happens is society is destroyed.
If they're on food stamps, they're obviously immoral horrible evil people and should all just die. At least that's what one side of the aisle would like you to think.
FTFY. Corporate profits are at all-time highs, companies are sitting on piles of cash that they COULD spend on salaries to ensure they attract top talent, but they'd rather spend it on lobbying for more H1-B visas.
Again, as has been covered on /. extensively, there is no shortage of American STEM graduates. Employers would rather bring over H1-Bs from Thirdworldhellholistan that they can pay 50% as much and work 100% harder. When you're not a citizen, and can be sent back pretty much at any time, you do what you're told instead of asking to be treated like a human being. Employers love that. They identify an H1-B that they can bring over, tailor the skill set for the job requirement such that that specific H1-B holder is the only one on the planet that has it, and then cry about not being able to find a native worker with that set.
At-will means two things:
1) They can fire you with no notice and no reason at any time.
2) You can quit and walk out with no notice and no stated reason at any time.
On paper, that seems fair. However, it's tilted in the employer's favor because most of the time losing a job is much worse for the employee than it is for the employer.
That's a little different. In that case your commission would be unpaid wages, and the DOL would be able to get involved.
Most of the time, though, their lawyers can beat up your lawyers.
Sure, they write the checks. But it's the lower classes that do the actual work. Which would be fine, if the lower classes shared in any success the company had.
"Hey, I just created $x that's going to make us a billion dollars!"
"Attaboy!"
That's it. The rich get richer off the hard work of other people.