It appears under a reference to a 2016 lawsuit, so one could be forgiven for thinking that it refers to the lawsuit in 2016. I looked for a link. There was none.
Like you skimmed it so fast you didn't notice the huge embedded document or something...
Like every web browser displays HUUUGE embedded documents by default.
I was talking about the "lemon" designation.
I know you were.
you just cam here to argue with me long after anyone really cares.
I asked you for a citation for something I did not see. Get over it. Your life will go on.
But what if the repair that was done, and then never specified, included repairs from someone smashing the vehicle into a pole or tree, or dropping the completed vehicle off of something when loading it / coming off the assembly line ( in which case the vehicle SHOULD have been reported as an accident repair / totaled vehicle repair)?
The vehicle wasn't totaled because it wasn't insured. It had never been owned by anyone. It was damaged somehow. And the factory fixed it.
Even if everything looks perfect the frame could be out of specifications,
Well, if the factory was failing to repair the vehicles properly, then THAT would be the lawsuit, not that they were simply selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs" as used or demos. Since improper repairs were not alleged, allegedly, then we should assume the factory knows how to fix their own cars to be within factory standards.
Probably just outside of warranty.
You're buying it used. If you don't like the warranty, don't buy it. If it fails outside of warranty, well, that's why a warranty has a lifetime.
As a side note, as this reads they were selling these cars as used / loaner vehicles even though the damage that was repaired was incurred before they were ever sold or used as loaner cars the first time.
Yeah. So why all the hoopla. They aren't lemons, they're just damaged before delivery. And the buyer was told they were not new.
A vehicle that was damaged and then repaired before ever being sold is NOT a used vehicle,
It is being sold as such. That's a category that tells the buyer it is not new.
it's refurbished merchandise
It was never owned before, so it is not "refurbished." Even so, "refurbished" means "used", so if you say it is not "used" then it cannot also be "refurbished".
Citation required. I see no link to the actual lawsuit, only The Verge's story about the lawsuit. What IT says is "A former Tesla employee claims the company knowingly sold defective cars, often referred to as 'lemons,'". That "often referred to" could simply be The Verge's addition where they try to link the concept of "lemon" and "defective".
If that means they were returned under lemon laws and sold again without disclosing that
The cars were "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs". How do you return a car as a lemon if is has never been delivered to you? That phrase is much more specific than simply "defective", and it is much different. I would not put it past modern journalism, especially muckraking style, to convert "damaged" into "defective", since the latter is much more inciteful (not "insightful") than the former.
If it just means that the factory replaced the door motor three times already
A defective door motor is not "damage" to the vehicle, it is a defect. "Damage" is what happens to a car from the outside, not just a failed part. The part could be defective because IT was damaged, but it is not a car, it is only one part.
So, is this repeated "Gateway timeout" I'm seeing from this site related to the net neutrality protests that some websites are supposed to be participating in? If so, knock it off, slashdot.
Unless Adam Williams owns one of these "used" / "demo" vehicles, how does he have any Standing to bring this lawsuit about at all?
If the lawsuit was actually about selling defective vehicles he wouldn't. But the lawsuit is actually about him being fired for telling people that Tesla was selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repair[ed]" vehicles and upper management got tired of his whining about it. It's not about "defective" vehicles, since the vehicles weren't defective when they were sold. They had been "damaged".
Wow, lemons? That sounds serious! If a vehicle is in the shop more than it's out,
TFA mentions "lemons". It also says "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs." "Pre-delivery" and "damage repairs" means the car wasn't "in the shop" because of some failure in hardware. It means that there was damage to the car before it was ever sold the first time. This is not a sign of poor design or part failure. It's what happens when someone backs a forklift into a car after it comes off the assembly line but before it is delivered. Or it gets damaged going onto the delivery truck.
It's not a "lemon" in any sense of the word.
So just to be clear, Tesla had demo and/or loaner vehicles which were repaired (at some expense which might be described as "high") before they were delivered to customers.
They had vehicles. They didn't have to be demo or loaners, they could have been in the factory being built when the damage occurred.
These repairs were performed by Tesla, which then sold them as demo and/or loaner vehicles. I'm failing to see a problem here.
Me either.
Maybe there's more to this, and this just isn't a very good article.
This is slashdot.
What I question is the headline, since the lawsuit isn't about selling defective vehicles, it's about being fired, and selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repair[ed]" vehicles isn't selling defective vehicles anyway. There is no proof that the damage was the result of a defect, and after they are repaired (i.e. when they were sold) they didn't have the damage anymore.
I replied to your argument that you disagreed with the OP. If the only argument you had was with the word "stolen", then it was specious. I assume you intended something more substantial, and that's why I ASKED (see the question mark?) if you thought it was "no problem".
You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.
Of course I can. I don't live in Germany.
Also of course, I should have referred to the use of the swastika and not just a mention of the names. Please continue in that context. (Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)
As for those who seem intent on pointing out that Slashdot cannot keep Vietnam from prohibiting speech, yet another "of course". I wrote of the best solution, which isn't necessarily possible, and which isn't necessarily available to those who are outside the system. "The system" also means "in the power structure" for those countries where the people are not the power structure. Neither Slashdot nor Vietnam has any input into the US Constitution, which is where the US founders tried solving the problem, so it should have been obvious what was being said.
Is that the government gets to define it. Like Germany where they prohibit speech that they define as hate speech, Vietnam also prohibits speech they define as hate speech.
The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.
I'm not sure how someone having a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis "directly affects the masses", but I'm sure German officials could answer that.
Quoting words that weren't used is lame, as is trying to debate the meaning of the word "books". Do you next try asking what the meaning of "is" is?
Why did you think you should be able to use a bookstore as a library? They're spending a lot of money so you can sit and read their books for free, and now we wonder why they're failing? Libraries get support from tax dollars; bookstores need to show a profit to remain open. You don't go to a bookstore because the coffee isn't the right brand? Do you have a response that isn't lame, or just more irrelevant ad hominem?
Quoting what you are specifically replying to is good practice. What's lame is expecting bookstores to provide free reading of their wares and not paying them for the privilege, as is dismissing opposing ideas with sound-byte inanities.
What depends on that? You quoted nothing, so there is no context for that statement.
Every weekend it had been my habit to drive to Borders, read some role-playing manuals, and then buy a novel.
Those would be "books", as sold in a bookstore. Why did you think that you should be able to treat the bookstore like a library, other than their stupid decision to put a coffee shop and chairs in their bookstore?
Did I particularly convert those manuals to 'used' status? Not to my knowledge;
Yes, by using them you made them "used". They certainly weren't new anymore. This is worse with magazines, but books have the same issues. I've picked up "new" books (and magazines) that showed more wear and tear than I would ever give them, and wondered why anyone would buy them for full price. That is just one more example of a cost that B&N has that Amazon does not. You don't get to touch the products without paying.
Maybe they thought by pretending to be a library they'd attract more people who would buy books, but they've lost sales to me because I won't pay full price for a used book or magazine.
B&N sells the books for list price, which is typically 50% over Amazon. Thatâ(TM)s too damn much, physical store or not.
They are, however, about the only reliable periodical dealer left. You can still go in and pay cash for magazines you don't necessarily want connected to you.
I stopped going there when they scrapped Cafe Valos for Seattle's best and stopped carrying Vanilla Mystic Chai.
You abandoned a bookstore because their coffee shop wasn't to your liking? Wasn't much of a bookstore then, was it? I mean, you should be going to a bookstore to buy books, not to sit around treating it like a library reading room while drinking coffee. You were turning all those "new" books into "used" books without the dealer being honest enough to sell them as such.
What "required expenses" do brick and mortar stores have that Amazon doesn't have?
It costs money to lease space in malls, and money to keep it open to the public. It is much cheaper to lease or build warehouse space that is open only to employees.
Amazon inserted itself as a middleman into all those transactions.
Amazon didn't insert itself anywhere. Those third party sellers are there because those third party sellers asked to be there.
They are not the best thing to happen to small business - internet sales are the best thing.
Amazon is how many internet sales take place, providing the storefront for those third party sellers so they don't have to spend the money doing it themselves.
and also making it MUCH harder for anyone that doesn't want to give Amazon that slice of the profit.
A seller that wants to run his own website doesn't find the job harder because of Amazon. In fact, they may be doing it on an AWS cloud server, which means Amazon makes it easier. But no harder.
The word for that is Monopoly
No, the word for that is "very large", but Amazon is hardly a monopoly. The web is very very large, and Amazon is only a part of it.
As AC points out, that's why they say "up to". And anyone who has any knowledge of how the net actually works knows that ISPs cannot guarantee the throughput for any destination that is not controlled by them, even if it is on their own network, and especially if it is not on their network. Had Charter actually made promises about everyone being able to reach Netflix at full speed they'd be committing false advertising. Charter doesn't sell Netflix service and makes no claims about Netflix service.
I can only speak about Android, but I assume Apple devices work in a similar manner.
I do too, which is why I pointed out that if you create the hardware you can have it do anything you want and no signed operating system later will be able to prevent or detect it. Who watches the watchers? Or, if it is turtles all the way down, who verifies the signature on the bottom of the bottom turtle?
You do know Foxconn is Taiwanese. They aren't exactly keen on being subservient to the Chinese government.
Taiwan is China. They think they are the One True China. The other Chinese think THEY are the One True China. One is PRC, the other is ROC. In both cases, "C" stands for "China".
The summary talks about advising Americans against using Huawei phones, but then quotes telecommunications infrastructure. These are two very different applications with very different risk profiles.
You cannot imagine a situation where 1,000,000 users of Huawei phones could result in an impact on the telecom infrastructure?
Can you easily differentiate the millions of users with Nest thermostats, internet controlled lighting, etc, from a potential botnet using IoT devices? Are the users part of the problem or are they a completely different application with a very different risk profile?
What if China cut, in retaliation, and in their traditions - much more harsh way, Apple? 1/4-1/3 of profit gone? (and other countries might enjoy following trend)
China (and every other country on the planet) could ban the import of all Apple devices manufactured in the USA and Apple wouldn't even notice. Neither would the US balance of trade monitors.
It may be flashed by the OEM but unless they have Apple's private keys they aren't modifying it.
You don't have to modify the OS if you've modified the BIOS or what is used to verify the BIOS signature. Before you say "phones don't have a BIOS", then replace "BIOS" with "boot code".
It is pretty well accepted as fact that the Chinese manufacturers can insert all kinds of backdoors into the networking hardware they manufacture. The US government saying that a Chinese phone manufacturer can do that, too, does not take a real leap of faith.
I've used Chinese-made network hardware that I've seen sending data back to an unidentified server in China. I don't doubt that a cell phone manufacturer might be able and willing to do the same. The difference is that it is trivial to install a firewall block on the server address for a piece of hardware on my network but impossible to install one on a cell phone using the cell network. (Before you say "root it, install cyanogen or similar open source, and install a firewall on your phone...", I'll point out that if the hardware is the culprit your software will not stop the communications.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's embedded in the Verge article.
It appears under a reference to a 2016 lawsuit, so one could be forgiven for thinking that it refers to the lawsuit in 2016. I looked for a link. There was none.
Like you skimmed it so fast you didn't notice the huge embedded document or something...
Like every web browser displays HUUUGE embedded documents by default.
I was talking about the "lemon" designation.
I know you were.
you just cam here to argue with me long after anyone really cares.
I asked you for a citation for something I did not see. Get over it. Your life will go on.
But what if the repair that was done, and then never specified, included repairs from someone smashing the vehicle into a pole or tree, or dropping the completed vehicle off of something when loading it / coming off the assembly line ( in which case the vehicle SHOULD have been reported as an accident repair / totaled vehicle repair)?
The vehicle wasn't totaled because it wasn't insured. It had never been owned by anyone. It was damaged somehow. And the factory fixed it.
Even if everything looks perfect the frame could be out of specifications,
Well, if the factory was failing to repair the vehicles properly, then THAT would be the lawsuit, not that they were simply selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs" as used or demos. Since improper repairs were not alleged, allegedly, then we should assume the factory knows how to fix their own cars to be within factory standards.
Probably just outside of warranty.
You're buying it used. If you don't like the warranty, don't buy it. If it fails outside of warranty, well, that's why a warranty has a lifetime.
As a side note, as this reads they were selling these cars as used / loaner vehicles even though the damage that was repaired was incurred before they were ever sold or used as loaner cars the first time.
Yeah. So why all the hoopla. They aren't lemons, they're just damaged before delivery. And the buyer was told they were not new.
A vehicle that was damaged and then repaired before ever being sold is NOT a used vehicle,
It is being sold as such. That's a category that tells the buyer it is not new.
it's refurbished merchandise
It was never owned before, so it is not "refurbished." Even so, "refurbished" means "used", so if you say it is not "used" then it cannot also be "refurbished".
The lawsuit says "vehicles designated as lemons".
Citation required. I see no link to the actual lawsuit, only The Verge's story about the lawsuit. What IT says is "A former Tesla employee claims the company knowingly sold defective cars, often referred to as 'lemons,'". That "often referred to" could simply be The Verge's addition where they try to link the concept of "lemon" and "defective".
If that means they were returned under lemon laws and sold again without disclosing that
The cars were "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs". How do you return a car as a lemon if is has never been delivered to you? That phrase is much more specific than simply "defective", and it is much different. I would not put it past modern journalism, especially muckraking style, to convert "damaged" into "defective", since the latter is much more inciteful (not "insightful") than the former.
If it just means that the factory replaced the door motor three times already
A defective door motor is not "damage" to the vehicle, it is a defect. "Damage" is what happens to a car from the outside, not just a failed part. The part could be defective because IT was damaged, but it is not a car, it is only one part.
So, is this repeated "Gateway timeout" I'm seeing from this site related to the net neutrality protests that some websites are supposed to be participating in? If so, knock it off, slashdot.
Perhaps there needs to be a law requiring someone to walk in front of an AI with a red flag to warn people that an AI is coming?
Unless Adam Williams owns one of these "used" / "demo" vehicles, how does he have any Standing to bring this lawsuit about at all?
If the lawsuit was actually about selling defective vehicles he wouldn't. But the lawsuit is actually about him being fired for telling people that Tesla was selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repair[ed]" vehicles and upper management got tired of his whining about it. It's not about "defective" vehicles, since the vehicles weren't defective when they were sold. They had been "damaged".
Wow, lemons? That sounds serious! If a vehicle is in the shop more than it's out,
TFA mentions "lemons". It also says "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs." "Pre-delivery" and "damage repairs" means the car wasn't "in the shop" because of some failure in hardware. It means that there was damage to the car before it was ever sold the first time. This is not a sign of poor design or part failure. It's what happens when someone backs a forklift into a car after it comes off the assembly line but before it is delivered. Or it gets damaged going onto the delivery truck.
It's not a "lemon" in any sense of the word.
So just to be clear, Tesla had demo and/or loaner vehicles which were repaired (at some expense which might be described as "high") before they were delivered to customers.
They had vehicles. They didn't have to be demo or loaners, they could have been in the factory being built when the damage occurred.
These repairs were performed by Tesla, which then sold them as demo and/or loaner vehicles. I'm failing to see a problem here.
Me either.
Maybe there's more to this, and this just isn't a very good article.
This is slashdot.
What I question is the headline, since the lawsuit isn't about selling defective vehicles, it's about being fired, and selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repair[ed]" vehicles isn't selling defective vehicles anyway. There is no proof that the damage was the result of a defect, and after they are repaired (i.e. when they were sold) they didn't have the damage anymore.
That's disingenuous of you to claim.
I replied to your argument that you disagreed with the OP. If the only argument you had was with the word "stolen", then it was specious. I assume you intended something more substantial, and that's why I ASKED (see the question mark?) if you thought it was "no problem".
But you have stolen nothing from them.
Using this argument, the flight sim company has not stolen any usernames or passwords. No problem?
You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.
Of course I can. I don't live in Germany.
Also of course, I should have referred to the use of the swastika and not just a mention of the names. Please continue in that context. (Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)
As for those who seem intent on pointing out that Slashdot cannot keep Vietnam from prohibiting speech, yet another "of course". I wrote of the best solution, which isn't necessarily possible, and which isn't necessarily available to those who are outside the system. "The system" also means "in the power structure" for those countries where the people are not the power structure. Neither Slashdot nor Vietnam has any input into the US Constitution, which is where the US founders tried solving the problem, so it should have been obvious what was being said.
The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.
I'm not sure how someone having a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis "directly affects the masses", but I'm sure German officials could answer that.
Ah, now I 'expected' it of them.
Quoting words that weren't used is lame, as is trying to debate the meaning of the word "books". Do you next try asking what the meaning of "is" is?
Why did you think you should be able to use a bookstore as a library? They're spending a lot of money so you can sit and read their books for free, and now we wonder why they're failing? Libraries get support from tax dollars; bookstores need to show a profit to remain open. You don't go to a bookstore because the coffee isn't the right brand? Do you have a response that isn't lame, or just more irrelevant ad hominem?
Quoting what you are specifically replying to is good practice. What's lame is expecting bookstores to provide free reading of their wares and not paying them for the privilege, as is dismissing opposing ideas with sound-byte inanities.
Depends on what you mean by books.
What depends on that? You quoted nothing, so there is no context for that statement.
Every weekend it had been my habit to drive to Borders, read some role-playing manuals, and then buy a novel.
Those would be "books", as sold in a bookstore. Why did you think that you should be able to treat the bookstore like a library, other than their stupid decision to put a coffee shop and chairs in their bookstore?
Did I particularly convert those manuals to 'used' status? Not to my knowledge;
Yes, by using them you made them "used". They certainly weren't new anymore. This is worse with magazines, but books have the same issues. I've picked up "new" books (and magazines) that showed more wear and tear than I would ever give them, and wondered why anyone would buy them for full price. That is just one more example of a cost that B&N has that Amazon does not. You don't get to touch the products without paying.
Maybe they thought by pretending to be a library they'd attract more people who would buy books, but they've lost sales to me because I won't pay full price for a used book or magazine.
B&N sells the books for list price, which is typically 50% over Amazon. Thatâ(TM)s too damn much, physical store or not.
They are, however, about the only reliable periodical dealer left. You can still go in and pay cash for magazines you don't necessarily want connected to you.
I stopped going there when they scrapped Cafe Valos for Seattle's best and stopped carrying Vanilla Mystic Chai.
You abandoned a bookstore because their coffee shop wasn't to your liking? Wasn't much of a bookstore then, was it? I mean, you should be going to a bookstore to buy books, not to sit around treating it like a library reading room while drinking coffee. You were turning all those "new" books into "used" books without the dealer being honest enough to sell them as such.
What "required expenses" do brick and mortar stores have that Amazon doesn't have?
It costs money to lease space in malls, and money to keep it open to the public. It is much cheaper to lease or build warehouse space that is open only to employees.
Amazon inserted itself as a middleman into all those transactions.
Amazon didn't insert itself anywhere. Those third party sellers are there because those third party sellers asked to be there.
They are not the best thing to happen to small business - internet sales are the best thing.
Amazon is how many internet sales take place, providing the storefront for those third party sellers so they don't have to spend the money doing it themselves.
and also making it MUCH harder for anyone that doesn't want to give Amazon that slice of the profit.
A seller that wants to run his own website doesn't find the job harder because of Amazon. In fact, they may be doing it on an AWS cloud server, which means Amazon makes it easier. But no harder.
The word for that is Monopoly
No, the word for that is "very large", but Amazon is hardly a monopoly. The web is very very large, and Amazon is only a part of it.
As AC points out, that's why they say "up to". And anyone who has any knowledge of how the net actually works knows that ISPs cannot guarantee the throughput for any destination that is not controlled by them, even if it is on their own network, and especially if it is not on their network. Had Charter actually made promises about everyone being able to reach Netflix at full speed they'd be committing false advertising. Charter doesn't sell Netflix service and makes no claims about Netflix service.
Hitler was quite a bit worse than Spelling Nazis. You should read a history book.
Spelling nazis are in charge of editing the history books. Revisionist history favors those with the power of the press.
I can only speak about Android, but I assume Apple devices work in a similar manner.
I do too, which is why I pointed out that if you create the hardware you can have it do anything you want and no signed operating system later will be able to prevent or detect it. Who watches the watchers? Or, if it is turtles all the way down, who verifies the signature on the bottom of the bottom turtle?
You do know Foxconn is Taiwanese. They aren't exactly keen on being subservient to the Chinese government.
Taiwan is China. They think they are the One True China. The other Chinese think THEY are the One True China. One is PRC, the other is ROC. In both cases, "C" stands for "China".
The summary talks about advising Americans against using Huawei phones, but then quotes telecommunications infrastructure. These are two very different applications with very different risk profiles.
You cannot imagine a situation where 1,000,000 users of Huawei phones could result in an impact on the telecom infrastructure?
Can you easily differentiate the millions of users with Nest thermostats, internet controlled lighting, etc, from a potential botnet using IoT devices? Are the users part of the problem or are they a completely different application with a very different risk profile?
What if China cut, in retaliation, and in their traditions - much more harsh way, Apple? 1/4-1/3 of profit gone? (and other countries might enjoy following trend)
China (and every other country on the planet) could ban the import of all Apple devices manufactured in the USA and Apple wouldn't even notice. Neither would the US balance of trade monitors.
It may be flashed by the OEM but unless they have Apple's private keys they aren't modifying it.
You don't have to modify the OS if you've modified the BIOS or what is used to verify the BIOS signature. Before you say "phones don't have a BIOS", then replace "BIOS" with "boot code".
Why anyone trusts anything they say is beyond me.
It is pretty well accepted as fact that the Chinese manufacturers can insert all kinds of backdoors into the networking hardware they manufacture. The US government saying that a Chinese phone manufacturer can do that, too, does not take a real leap of faith.
I've used Chinese-made network hardware that I've seen sending data back to an unidentified server in China. I don't doubt that a cell phone manufacturer might be able and willing to do the same. The difference is that it is trivial to install a firewall block on the server address for a piece of hardware on my network but impossible to install one on a cell phone using the cell network. (Before you say "root it, install cyanogen or similar open source, and install a firewall on your phone...", I'll point out that if the hardware is the culprit your software will not stop the communications.)