My guess is they purchased some software that had the ability to track the computers location so they could get them back, and they didn't really understand what else it did. While I hate these rental companies, I also sometimes hate the way these invasions of privacy are reported. The software may have had access to this information, but it might not have actually transmitted it anywhere. Its hard to tell from these reports what really happened. Whoever is selling this software maybe should have some accountability as well as Aaron's.
Aaron's and similar rental companies are built on taking advantage of lower income folks who are not good financial decision makers. While there is an element of that with many businesses, these rental companies take it to the extreme.
Fuel cells have been a "promise" for decades. Heavy investment and R&D has not yet come close to yielding a product the mass market can make use of. They will be relegated to niche markets unless some tremendous breakthroughs occur.
You can tell what the priorities of the Obama administration are by who they hold accountable. People can die in Benghazi, give guns to Mexican drug lords, abuse the powers of the IRS, but when it comes to tweeting, somebody has to go down.
And what conclusions did I jump to? That other states have similar laws? Is that really a jump? That some folks are posting assertive positions without understanding the history of the law? Is that really a jump?
I freely admitted I don't know all the facts behind the law. I have not seen any indication that you or others do either. I also admitted I don't like the law on its surface. But what if there were unregulated "dealers" screwing consumers with false information and part of the intention was to reduce or eliminate that? Isn't that the kind of stuff liberals love?
So, like I said, protectionist laws are not that uncommon. They are often the result of lobbies. They exist in red and blue states. They have unintended consequences. Conservatives don't necessarily support them just because they are in Texas. Did any democratic Texans vote for this? I would guess some did, and some Republicans voted against it. Is there any part of this last paragraph that you disagree with?
Its sure is gonna be hard to change to another tax revenue stream. If they tax per mile instead of per gallon, the price of gas drops thereby increasing the burning of gas and also the sales of less efficient autos.
OTOH, taxing by mile should also include a vehicle weight factor, as lighter vehicles cause less damage to roads. This factor was already somewhat inherent in the gas tax as heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel.
In the end, treating out of state drivers fairly will be the biggest challenge. The answer.....tolls every-freaking-where.
Posts in response to this topic are a classic example of how many people jump to criticism without the first bit of knowledge. How about taking some time to learn where the law originated and the reasons why. Then maybe take a minute and try to think if there are any states that do not have laws that are protectionist for one market or another. I bet you can find similar laws in every state.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know enough of the details to criticize this law or support it, I can say it seems misguided at first glance. Lots of things seem crazy on the surface.
Regardless, I am laughing at the amount of concentrated stupidity posted thus far. At least a few folks are showing some insight. Others just seem to take pleasure in spewing ignorant anger. I am also noticing that the voice of the ignorant seems to be a little louder from a certain political slant.
99% of the time "I've heard an interesting angle but have yet to confirm it." (or similar) = "I'm completely making this up" or "I have no clue whatsoever but I like this idea so I am posting in anyway".
Come back when you have these magical "details" that are apparently coming your way but eluding the rest of the nation. Meanwhile, I'll just assume you are as clueless as your responses indicate.
Yes, like none of those folks would have gotten any care at all if they got cancer last year....
So even though my point was comparing the impacts on the already insured year to year and you shifted the point altogether instead of addressing it, you still didn't make a valid point.
I guess manholes just happen to be located in those same places that rechargeable vehicles tend to park. And for those that aren't, we'll just move em!
What is easy is managing computer systems and products that are already made (to some extent) to be user friendly and/or have a good support structure. Someone, like yourself, with a degree can offer better IS services to customers who have needs in that field. So an electronics design company may be better off using you, with your degree, to develop a solution for electronic design or modeling. A non-degreed person, or one with different degree, might not be as helpful.
I also see this as an excuse for those who's companies have hired crappy workers. Claiming you hired some idiot out of college, and he turned out to be an idiot, has less to do with the value of education and more to do with not hiring someone with the necessary skill set, or did not put in place the training or resources needed to make that person successful, degree or not.
How can you predict what angle politicians will take 3 years into the future? They are an opportunistic bunch. Look how stupid the 9/11 panic made the US. Your argument is not making sense to me.
Let me help. In 3 years, the GOP will still be against this law. That is not hard to predict.
My argument does not make sense to YOU because you forgot your original point, which was to blame the website failure on the GOP. You shifted to this being some kind of budget issue, which by the way there is no evidence that budget was a cause, and thereby you enabled yourself to claim confusion rather than backing up a ridiculous assertion.
If you word bill funding for the actual & probable scenarios, then it may look too expensive to justify.
If you word bill funding for the inadequate, you get inadequate.
But funding is not the basis of my response, although it is a nice tactic shift away from the ridiculous contention that the GOP is to blame for the website fiasco.
I'm sure there's tons of people salivating at the chance to jump all over this topic and say things like "classic government inefficiency at work." But the reality is that these kinds of projects happen every day in private sector companies.
Large companies with anything close to the resources of the US government and with a product that has so much at stake rarely, if ever, roll out anything as broken as this. They may undertake projects that result in a poor product, but they don't roll those products out to the world. They fix them first. Minor glitches are a different story.
I agree with the them of your other points, though. The right wing is going to keep overtly pushing the negatives whilst the president and left wing will overtly stretch the positive. Reality will be in between.
Allegedly the DHHS originally assumed most states would run their own website for such because a lot of the service comparing info is state-centric anyhow.
Leave it to the great defenders..... the GOP is responsible for the bad assumptions of the DHHS.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is they purchased some software that had the ability to track the computers location so they could get them back, and they didn't really understand what else it did. While I hate these rental companies, I also sometimes hate the way these invasions of privacy are reported. The software may have had access to this information, but it might not have actually transmitted it anywhere. Its hard to tell from these reports what really happened. Whoever is selling this software maybe should have some accountability as well as Aaron's.
Oh crap, all this wasted discussion!
Aaron's and similar rental companies are built on taking advantage of lower income folks who are not good financial decision makers. While there is an element of that with many businesses, these rental companies take it to the extreme.
We can't have 4k TV AND those broadband caps at the same time. I couldn't possibly afford digital entertainment under those conditions.
THIS. Its mostly about Netflix. Charge enough that it costs less to order Pay Per View than to use Netflix, then TWC pushes them out.
With that said, I am open for ISPs to offer usage tiers where there is access to competitive broadband.
Fuel cells have been a "promise" for decades. Heavy investment and R&D has not yet come close to yielding a product the mass market can make use of. They will be relegated to niche markets unless some tremendous breakthroughs occur.
Size matters. When in doubt, you select the company with the biggest donor.
You can tell what the priorities of the Obama administration are by who they hold accountable. People can die in Benghazi, give guns to Mexican drug lords, abuse the powers of the IRS, but when it comes to tweeting, somebody has to go down.
Good point. To some extent, the gas tax is a regressive tax in a similar manner.
And what conclusions did I jump to? That other states have similar laws? Is that really a jump? That some folks are posting assertive positions without understanding the history of the law? Is that really a jump?
I freely admitted I don't know all the facts behind the law. I have not seen any indication that you or others do either. I also admitted I don't like the law on its surface. But what if there were unregulated "dealers" screwing consumers with false information and part of the intention was to reduce or eliminate that? Isn't that the kind of stuff liberals love?
So, like I said, protectionist laws are not that uncommon. They are often the result of lobbies. They exist in red and blue states. They have unintended consequences. Conservatives don't necessarily support them just because they are in Texas. Did any democratic Texans vote for this? I would guess some did, and some Republicans voted against it. Is there any part of this last paragraph that you disagree with?
Its sure is gonna be hard to change to another tax revenue stream. If they tax per mile instead of per gallon, the price of gas drops thereby increasing the burning of gas and also the sales of less efficient autos.
OTOH, taxing by mile should also include a vehicle weight factor, as lighter vehicles cause less damage to roads. This factor was already somewhat inherent in the gas tax as heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel.
In the end, treating out of state drivers fairly will be the biggest challenge. The answer.....tolls every-freaking-where.
Posts in response to this topic are a classic example of how many people jump to criticism without the first bit of knowledge. How about taking some time to learn where the law originated and the reasons why. Then maybe take a minute and try to think if there are any states that do not have laws that are protectionist for one market or another. I bet you can find similar laws in every state.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know enough of the details to criticize this law or support it, I can say it seems misguided at first glance. Lots of things seem crazy on the surface.
Regardless, I am laughing at the amount of concentrated stupidity posted thus far. At least a few folks are showing some insight. Others just seem to take pleasure in spewing ignorant anger. I am also noticing that the voice of the ignorant seems to be a little louder from a certain political slant.
and then use terminology such as "compatible with USB2.0 interfaces" to reduce consumer confusion.
99% of the time "I've heard an interesting angle but have yet to confirm it." (or similar) = "I'm completely making this up" or "I have no clue whatsoever but I like this idea so I am posting in anyway".
Come back when you have these magical "details" that are apparently coming your way but eluding the rest of the nation. Meanwhile, I'll just assume you are as clueless as your responses indicate.
Could they grow hair on my elbows using this technique? It would be nice and comfortable whilst leaning against my desk.
Yes, like none of those folks would have gotten any care at all if they got cancer last year....
So even though my point was comparing the impacts on the already insured year to year and you shifted the point altogether instead of addressing it, you still didn't make a valid point.
Its not its, its it's, isn't it?
I guess manholes just happen to be located in those same places that rechargeable vehicles tend to park. And for those that aren't, we'll just move em!
What is easy is managing computer systems and products that are already made (to some extent) to be user friendly and/or have a good support structure. Someone, like yourself, with a degree can offer better IS services to customers who have needs in that field. So an electronics design company may be better off using you, with your degree, to develop a solution for electronic design or modeling. A non-degreed person, or one with different degree, might not be as helpful.
I also see this as an excuse for those who's companies have hired crappy workers. Claiming you hired some idiot out of college, and he turned out to be an idiot, has less to do with the value of education and more to do with not hiring someone with the necessary skill set, or did not put in place the training or resources needed to make that person successful, degree or not.
How can you predict what angle politicians will take 3 years into the future? They are an opportunistic bunch. Look how stupid the 9/11 panic made the US. Your argument is not making sense to me.
Let me help. In 3 years, the GOP will still be against this law. That is not hard to predict.
My argument does not make sense to YOU because you forgot your original point, which was to blame the website failure on the GOP. You shifted to this being some kind of budget issue, which by the way there is no evidence that budget was a cause, and thereby you enabled yourself to claim confusion rather than backing up a ridiculous assertion.
I've know where you are Mr. "Sync", and I am watching you.
Yeah. They are really 'detecting' the BT presence, not connecting. Ignorant reporting is a much bigger problem these days.
If you word bill funding for the actual & probable scenarios, then it may look too expensive to justify.
If you word bill funding for the inadequate, you get inadequate.
But funding is not the basis of my response, although it is a nice tactic shift away from the ridiculous contention that the GOP is to blame for the website fiasco.
I'm sure there's tons of people salivating at the chance to jump all over this topic and say things like "classic government inefficiency at work." But the reality is that these kinds of projects happen every day in private sector companies.
Large companies with anything close to the resources of the US government and with a product that has so much at stake rarely, if ever, roll out anything as broken as this. They may undertake projects that result in a poor product, but they don't roll those products out to the world. They fix them first. Minor glitches are a different story.
I agree with the them of your other points, though. The right wing is going to keep overtly pushing the negatives whilst the president and left wing will overtly stretch the positive. Reality will be in between.
Allegedly the DHHS originally assumed most states would run their own website for such because a lot of the service comparing info is state-centric anyhow.
Leave it to the great defenders..... the GOP is responsible for the bad assumptions of the DHHS.