Why should they have to accept another VW car? They should get their full retail purchase price back since the sale was a fraud. Then they can buy a vehicle from a trustworthy manufacturer.
The test labs performed a well-designed test designed to compare different vehicles under identical conditions. They didn't set out to detect cheating because doing so is a pretty serious criminal activity better left to the police. And after Cummins got caught so red-handed you wouldn't expect anyone else to try such ridiculous chicanery, but the VW folks proved us all wrong.
The cars are not rigged to PASS inspections; they're rigged to pass a *particular* inspection. States are free to conduct their inspections in other ways, so the cars do not PASS inspections plural they game a particular inspection and aren't legal for use on roadways. Because even if they pass the inspection, their normal use is not complaint with the law.
Right now the cars are *not* legal to drive. You point out a way that they *could* be made legal to drive (although they may not be able to get up a hill or maintain the 45mph minimum speed on some freeways in that mode), but they aren't legal right now. So you basically have problem my point. They aren't legal today but they could be made legal by changing the ECU. Or by equipping them with pedals and turning them into oversize bicycles or any number of ways. Even if the change were completely trivial it doesn't matter; they're not legal right now.
Yes but there is also a lot of *good* content that isn't monetizing well ( and should ). Think The New York Times, as an example. I subscribe because good journalism doesn't produce itself. Amazon giving away Washington Post subscriptions may be the model of the future. I hope so since news gathering is an important function. Although I think there is too much of it in the world; no reason for a hundred journalists to cover the same thing. But it's not clear how far the bottom is going to fall out, and it may be too much.
If you don't want to pay for the goods, don't go to the hardware store. No, the correct option is to go to the hardware store and steal what you want. This has personal benefits - it doesn't cost you any money - and aggregate benefits (if enough people do this, there will be less hardware stores).
The two are equivalent. Seeing the ads is how you pay for the content. There will be less ads due to their being less content which isn't an aggregate benefit. If the content is good, it's a net loss.
/. is a good example in that, those of us who post regularly, are given the option to disable advertising. You get the content in exchange for either viewing the ads incidentally or contributing comments. I agree that most of the web is low-value content in order to get low-value ads in front of eyeballs. Would rather an ad-blocker that just blocks those sites entirely.
The inspection / registration requirement is an enforcement mechanism. Even when this testing is done on a regular basis (so you won't get caught) it's illegal to operate these vehicles. In many states police can do inspections for cause. And since none of these vehicles are legal to operate, having on on the road seems like sufficient reason to stop you and perform an emissions inspection. So really the owners have to stop driving them immediately. I realize that most owners won't comply, the but law doesn't say you can violate emissions until you get caught. You can't do it.
Even if not subject to annual emissions checks, most states allow police, under certain circumstances, to inspect vehicles to ensure that they meet safety and emissions requirements. Even if this doesn't happen often (or at all), the fact that you won't get caught doesn't mean that the act is legal. The only thing you can do with these cars is display them as art. They aren't fit for purpose and should be fully refunded.
http://www.dmv.org/nj-new-jers...
Some states, NJ and CA that I know of, do annual inspections. In others, the police can stop you and test your emissions under certain circumstances. In either of these cases, you would fail the inspection. These cars can't be repaired to pass the tests. Therefore, you will not be able to operate them.
These were sold as cars legal to drive in the US but are not. Therefore, a full refund is the only appropriate course of action.
Yes something wrong with the European standards.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for diesel cars comes after nearly 20 years of the technology being incentivised in Europe in the knowledge that its adoption would reduce global warming emissions but lead to thousands of extra deaths from increased levels of toxic gases.
That's happening right now. Your payment for viewing the ads is getting to see the/. content. You can also find places where, in exchange for watching a 30 second video clip, you get 45 minutes of access to their WiFi network. Lots of advertisers will buy you dinner if you listen to their sales pitch. Oh and I'm sure you can find companies out there that will pay you cash. For web browsing, your payment is the content.
Well if the ad blocker were a subscription service then your model would work perfectly. The organization doing the ad blocking would be responsible for equitable distribution of that revenue.
If you don't want to see ads, don't go to sites with advertisements. Seems a pretty logical extension of the ad blocker. You can have three choices. (1) If a web site has ads, block all visits to the site (you're probably the only person in the world who will use this feature) (2) If a web site has ads that are also malware, block the ads, (3) If the ads are just ads the same way that they are in traditional media (newspaper, magazine) read the content. I have pointed out in another post that a more reasonable choice for option (1) would be to send a portion of your annual ad-blocking payment to the target web-site instead of blocking it and they serve up the content without ads.
There's no reason that ad blocking couldn't be a subscription model. After all, staying ahead of the advertisers takes continuous updates so it makes sense to sell ad blocking as a service. Let's say I charge $5/year to block ads. Track which ads got blocked and split the revenue 50/50 with the advertisers based on which sites were visited.
Having to buy back all of the affected cars at full retail isn't a vengeful punishment. The buyers weren't complicit in this fraud. They now have a car that isn't legal to drive. If you don't make them buy back the cars at full retail, the deceived purchasers won't be whole. If I steal $1M from you, should I only have to pay back less than that? If so, I might as well steal and get caught. Punitive or vengeful would be making them pay damages on top of that, but repurchase at full retail seems to be the equivalent of paying back the amount you stole.
Cummins did exactly the same thing about five or six years ago. Their fraud was a lower-tech version of the same scheme. They paid their billion dollar find and moved on.
Yes I see your point. But I also see the possibility of people Googling for the "Surface iPad" and getting hits for the Surface tablet. Remember, the announcers are *saying* iPad but people are *seeing* the word Surface. There could also be Best Buy conversations where people say "I want the iPad that the NFL coaches use." BB drone will sell them whichever has the higher profit for BB!
Maybe it's actually part of the campaign. Give people the idea that Surface and iPad are interchangeable things. When you're a secondary brand, you don't mind being confused with the market leader!
No it wasn't stupid at all. He built a homemade electronic clock. He was curious about the world and explored it. This desire to create is something we want to nurture not suppress. If the wright brothers were alive today, they would probably be charged with terrorism. That contraption they were making was clearly intended to wreak havoc.
Most employees don't have her level of resources to bring such a case. Although what you say is probably true (I certainly have no evidence to refute it), this isn't a typical case. She has an obscene amount of resources to bring to the table on this and still couldn't convince a jury. One thing that certain is true is that she isn't a very sympathetic litigant. I've seen real cases of gender discrimination throughout my career. I've seen more cases of incompetent people taking advantage of being in protected classes in order to claim discrimination when their work just isn't good. There clearly are gender biases in our society but that doesn't mean it occurred here.
At the end of the rental period, if you want to keep something, you just purchase it at the used price. But I'm still not making my point clearly, I don't think. Buying something that will eventually be worth nothing is really the same as renting something from a financial standpoint. There's nothing wrong with buying this stuff. But it's still not the same as owning a real asset. A real asset either has the potential for capital appreciation or will generate revenue. Even if you "own" it, from a financial standpoint you've rented it until such time as it has no value. By "no value" it means no value to you and no resale value. At which point you throw it out. Maybe that time period is much longer than a traditional rental contract (You probably get 15 - 20 years out of a car these days, four years out of a smartphone). But in the end, it's the same result.
Compare this to say using the same money to buying say a certificate of deposit for the same period of time as the expected life of the asset.
My point isn't that paying financing fees to the rental company is good, it's that if you wouldn't feel good about renting something, you shouldn't feel good about buying the same thing. The financing cost is a much smaller issue than the fact that the asset is only desirable for short-term enjoyment rather than long-term value.
Obtaining something that has no potential for depreciation is a cost. How you structure the transaction is a secondary issue.
Obtaining something that has potential for appreciation is an investment. How you structure the transaction is a secondary issue. (Although it will have a big impact on return). In the case of real estate, the fact that you *own* it is a big deal. Because it's going to have value for the rest of your life and a good chance of appreciating in value.
Something that is going to go to zero value, buying it is the same from a financial standpoint as spending the same amount of money eating out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, a replacement from VW isn't fair. They need a full refund to buy a car from a different manufacturer.
Why should they have to accept another VW car? They should get their full retail purchase price back since the sale was a fraud. Then they can buy a vehicle from a trustworthy manufacturer.
The test labs performed a well-designed test designed to compare different vehicles under identical conditions. They didn't set out to detect cheating because doing so is a pretty serious criminal activity better left to the police. And after Cummins got caught so red-handed you wouldn't expect anyone else to try such ridiculous chicanery, but the VW folks proved us all wrong.
The cars are not rigged to PASS inspections; they're rigged to pass a *particular* inspection. States are free to conduct their inspections in other ways, so the cars do not PASS inspections plural they game a particular inspection and aren't legal for use on roadways. Because even if they pass the inspection, their normal use is not complaint with the law.
Right now the cars are *not* legal to drive. You point out a way that they *could* be made legal to drive (although they may not be able to get up a hill or maintain the 45mph minimum speed on some freeways in that mode), but they aren't legal right now. So you basically have problem my point. They aren't legal today but they could be made legal by changing the ECU. Or by equipping them with pedals and turning them into oversize bicycles or any number of ways. Even if the change were completely trivial it doesn't matter; they're not legal right now.
Yes but there is also a lot of *good* content that isn't monetizing well ( and should ). Think The New York Times, as an example. I subscribe because good journalism doesn't produce itself. Amazon giving away Washington Post subscriptions may be the model of the future. I hope so since news gathering is an important function. Although I think there is too much of it in the world; no reason for a hundred journalists to cover the same thing. But it's not clear how far the bottom is going to fall out, and it may be too much.
If you don't want to pay for the goods, don't go to the hardware store. No, the correct option is to go to the hardware store and steal what you want. This has personal benefits - it doesn't cost you any money - and aggregate benefits (if enough people do this, there will be less hardware stores). The two are equivalent. Seeing the ads is how you pay for the content. There will be less ads due to their being less content which isn't an aggregate benefit. If the content is good, it's a net loss.
/. is a good example in that, those of us who post regularly, are given the option to disable advertising. You get the content in exchange for either viewing the ads incidentally or contributing comments. I agree that most of the web is low-value content in order to get low-value ads in front of eyeballs. Would rather an ad-blocker that just blocks those sites entirely.
The inspection / registration requirement is an enforcement mechanism. Even when this testing is done on a regular basis (so you won't get caught) it's illegal to operate these vehicles. In many states police can do inspections for cause. And since none of these vehicles are legal to operate, having on on the road seems like sufficient reason to stop you and perform an emissions inspection. So really the owners have to stop driving them immediately. I realize that most owners won't comply, the but law doesn't say you can violate emissions until you get caught. You can't do it.
Even if not subject to annual emissions checks, most states allow police, under certain circumstances, to inspect vehicles to ensure that they meet safety and emissions requirements. Even if this doesn't happen often (or at all), the fact that you won't get caught doesn't mean that the act is legal. The only thing you can do with these cars is display them as art. They aren't fit for purpose and should be fully refunded.
http://www.dmv.org/nj-new-jers... Some states, NJ and CA that I know of, do annual inspections. In others, the police can stop you and test your emissions under certain circumstances. In either of these cases, you would fail the inspection. These cars can't be repaired to pass the tests. Therefore, you will not be able to operate them. These were sold as cars legal to drive in the US but are not. Therefore, a full refund is the only appropriate course of action.
Yes something wrong with the European standards. http://www.theguardian.com/env... Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for diesel cars comes after nearly 20 years of the technology being incentivised in Europe in the knowledge that its adoption would reduce global warming emissions but lead to thousands of extra deaths from increased levels of toxic gases.
That's happening right now. Your payment for viewing the ads is getting to see the /. content. You can also find places where, in exchange for watching a 30 second video clip, you get 45 minutes of access to their WiFi network. Lots of advertisers will buy you dinner if you listen to their sales pitch. Oh and I'm sure you can find companies out there that will pay you cash. For web browsing, your payment is the content.
Well if the ad blocker were a subscription service then your model would work perfectly. The organization doing the ad blocking would be responsible for equitable distribution of that revenue.
I posted the same thing but didn't express it as well. Sadly that means I can't mod you up.
If you don't want to see ads, don't go to sites with advertisements. Seems a pretty logical extension of the ad blocker. You can have three choices. (1) If a web site has ads, block all visits to the site (you're probably the only person in the world who will use this feature) (2) If a web site has ads that are also malware, block the ads, (3) If the ads are just ads the same way that they are in traditional media (newspaper, magazine) read the content. I have pointed out in another post that a more reasonable choice for option (1) would be to send a portion of your annual ad-blocking payment to the target web-site instead of blocking it and they serve up the content without ads.
There's no reason that ad blocking couldn't be a subscription model. After all, staying ahead of the advertisers takes continuous updates so it makes sense to sell ad blocking as a service. Let's say I charge $5/year to block ads. Track which ads got blocked and split the revenue 50/50 with the advertisers based on which sites were visited.
Having to buy back all of the affected cars at full retail isn't a vengeful punishment. The buyers weren't complicit in this fraud. They now have a car that isn't legal to drive. If you don't make them buy back the cars at full retail, the deceived purchasers won't be whole. If I steal $1M from you, should I only have to pay back less than that? If so, I might as well steal and get caught. Punitive or vengeful would be making them pay damages on top of that, but repurchase at full retail seems to be the equivalent of paying back the amount you stole.
Cummins did exactly the same thing about five or six years ago. Their fraud was a lower-tech version of the same scheme. They paid their billion dollar find and moved on.
Yes I see your point. But I also see the possibility of people Googling for the "Surface iPad" and getting hits for the Surface tablet. Remember, the announcers are *saying* iPad but people are *seeing* the word Surface. There could also be Best Buy conversations where people say "I want the iPad that the NFL coaches use." BB drone will sell them whichever has the higher profit for BB!
Maybe it's actually part of the campaign. Give people the idea that Surface and iPad are interchangeable things. When you're a secondary brand, you don't mind being confused with the market leader!
No it wasn't stupid at all. He built a homemade electronic clock. He was curious about the world and explored it. This desire to create is something we want to nurture not suppress. If the wright brothers were alive today, they would probably be charged with terrorism. That contraption they were making was clearly intended to wreak havoc.
Most employees don't have her level of resources to bring such a case. Although what you say is probably true (I certainly have no evidence to refute it), this isn't a typical case. She has an obscene amount of resources to bring to the table on this and still couldn't convince a jury. One thing that certain is true is that she isn't a very sympathetic litigant. I've seen real cases of gender discrimination throughout my career. I've seen more cases of incompetent people taking advantage of being in protected classes in order to claim discrimination when their work just isn't good. There clearly are gender biases in our society but that doesn't mean it occurred here.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you down for offending me! But I don't, so sorry.
At the end of the rental period, if you want to keep something, you just purchase it at the used price. But I'm still not making my point clearly, I don't think. Buying something that will eventually be worth nothing is really the same as renting something from a financial standpoint. There's nothing wrong with buying this stuff. But it's still not the same as owning a real asset. A real asset either has the potential for capital appreciation or will generate revenue. Even if you "own" it, from a financial standpoint you've rented it until such time as it has no value. By "no value" it means no value to you and no resale value. At which point you throw it out. Maybe that time period is much longer than a traditional rental contract (You probably get 15 - 20 years out of a car these days, four years out of a smartphone). But in the end, it's the same result. Compare this to say using the same money to buying say a certificate of deposit for the same period of time as the expected life of the asset. My point isn't that paying financing fees to the rental company is good, it's that if you wouldn't feel good about renting something, you shouldn't feel good about buying the same thing. The financing cost is a much smaller issue than the fact that the asset is only desirable for short-term enjoyment rather than long-term value. Obtaining something that has no potential for depreciation is a cost. How you structure the transaction is a secondary issue. Obtaining something that has potential for appreciation is an investment. How you structure the transaction is a secondary issue. (Although it will have a big impact on return). In the case of real estate, the fact that you *own* it is a big deal. Because it's going to have value for the rest of your life and a good chance of appreciating in value. Something that is going to go to zero value, buying it is the same from a financial standpoint as spending the same amount of money eating out.