I'm not qualified to answer that question. And almost all the people who are qualified have a vested interest one way or the other, so it's very hard to tell.
I only wish I could negotiate with a BMW dealer. I would get laughed off the lot in my busted-up Subaru.:-) I don't know about the 328i sedan in question, but when my father-in-law bought his 330i convertible a few years ago, there was no negotiating. There was a several-month wait to get a car from the factory, and if you didn't want to pay list, there were plenty of other people who would, so the dealer had no interest in talking to you. Buying a BMW is not (necessarily) like buying a Toyota. Like I said, the sedan is much more mainstream, so it could be a very different story there - I have no idea.
But saying you don't understand why people like to have new cars shows a surprising lack of empathy with other people.
I certainly understand why people *like* driving new cars. That's obvious. What I don't get is why people find it *worth the money* to constantly drive a new car. I'm not talking about people making hundreds of thousands a year who can get a new Mercedes every year without flinching BTW, just everyday Joes. Maybe it's just the short-term perspective that's so commonplace. We have the money, so why not spend it on a new car rather than investing for retirement or kids' college?
d)Hmmm. Rescinding votes. How far back can we go with this?
I took it as rescinding your proxy so that that person can no longer vote in your behalf in the future. Past votes would not be affected. Then again, it's not my idea! I like it, though I doubt it will ever happen.
So if you're buying a BMW 3-series, it'll be somewhere in the high-20s or low-30s.
Off-topic, but these days the cheapest new 3 series is $32,400.
1) If you want the same vehicle for more than the typical two to three years, it'll almost certainly be cheaper to buy. But most people (especially in the US) get a new vehicle every three years on average.
Can someone explain this to me? My wife and I have bought three cars so far. One is 17 years old, has about 250K miles on it, and is still in use (though by her parents, not us). Another is 8 years old, the third 2, and we'll probably have each of them for 10-15 years. Do people like sinking so much of their income into cars, or feel insecure without a new car, or buy crappy cars and so have to replace them frequently, or what? I don't get it.
It comes down to ownership and renting..
Would you rather own your home, or rent it? Would you rather rent a car or own it?
Thats right, we can pay Google Apps to take care of our network architecture because we cant be bothered with it...
No, because we're not talking about a product, such as a house or a car. We're talking about a service. It's a service if you outsource it, and it's a service if you don't. The difference is who you're paying every month to do it, your own employees or another company. That doesn't mean everyone should outsource, but your analogy is flawed.
It means that we may have reached the limit of what you can expect out of workers, regardless of the income-level. We've squeezed workers to the point that marriages are failing, children are ignored and people have to be miserable if they want to pay their bills. Workers are made "management" so they can't get paid for overtime. The wonderful 7am "working breakfast" meetings become common. A CEO's effectiveness is measured by how many people he can lay off.
It's possible all that is true, but the Marketplace interview didn't mention any of it. It was all about productivity gains from IT.
OTOH, a test that actually does disprove string theory could be very bad news for string theorists. But you can bet there'll be a lot of scrambling to rejigger the theory after a failed test...
And that would be called... science, right? Formulate theory. Conduct experiment to test theory. If experiment contradicts theory, revise theory. Repeat.
I argue, that associating a target of the name-calling with the gross misdeeds of Fascists is the only reason to bring up such comparisons â" they have no other purpose.
But aren't we capable of distinguishing between the gross misdeeds of fascists, and fascism? If we're clear and specific, as (surprisingly) I've seen some of in this thread, I think there are legitimate reasons to bring it up. What we need to avoid is simply calling Gonzales a fascist and leaving it at that. A reasoned examination of exactly what fascism is, and whether the US is tending toward it, surely doesn't have anything to do with Godwin's law.
I'm still not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that because it's very easy to make a flawed comparison with fascist states of the past, that we shouldn't talk about whether the US is now or is becoming a fascist state. But I hope that's not really what you're saying. You could be arguing that the actual comparisons made on this thread are faulty and attempting to paint the US as a genocidal state, but I haven't seen that. The main "fascism" post I saw included a very detailed definition of the term and didn't try to pull in any emotional or irrelevant stuff. So... what are you saying here?
But Fascism itself was not the horrific part of that state. The targeted and cold-blooded extermination of millions of civilians (Jews and Gypsies) was.... Until you can name a racial, national, or religious minority that is being systematically exterminated (in cold blood, preferably) by "BushCo" -- or any hints of same -- kindly cease from dragging up "American decline into Fascism" all the time.
So which is it? Does fascism include the genocide, or not? If not, what is wrong with debating whether the US is becoming fascist? If it does, why do you think it does? Is there a commonly used definition of fascism that includes genocide? Or do you have some other reason for thinking the two must go together?
I don't think one could consider packaging "speech"... I'm sorry, but I can't really consider advertising "speech", either.
How is that not speech? It's words used publicly to communicate something from one entity to another. We know "speech" can be written or in other forms as far the 1st amendment goes, so I don't get where you're coming from.
No, that won't stop paid astroturfing.
Nobody is trying to stop it. The legislation was intended to clarify what is paid astroturfing, and what is simply opinion.
There has to be *some* limits on speech, just as few as possible - and it's probably better to let the "paid blogger" problem sort itself out (let the "blogosphere - the internet - manage itself), over the long run. Regulating it *specifically* just opens the door to more restrictions and more tax money being spent on something that'll do more damage than it "repairs".
Could be. I'm thinking the amendment would have been a good thing by lending more transparency, but I don't have a very strong opinion about it.
Yeah, and don't even get me started on education. Talk about abdicating your responsibility! You truck your kid off for 6 hours a day and some STRANGER fills their head with shit! This crap has got to stop.
I think you're joking. Maybe. But there are lots of people who feel that way.
Advertising/packaging != free speech
you're comparing apples and oranges there
Yes, they're different kinds of speech. They should be regulated differently. I was pointing out that paid speech tends to have limits put on it. One example of those limits was this amendment requiring paid political bloggers to register. Another limit is on lying in advertising. Another is disclosure rules for political ads. Many of these limits have good reasons and IMO positive effects, and I don't agree with the position taken by many in this debate that no speech should be limited, ever.
There is no implication here that the ads were falsified or made to appear as though they'd come from Chevy instead of Ford. Why can't Ford run a completely truthful ad in its own name that happens to make Chevy look bad?
Ah, I guess I didn't explain that well. I meant Ford should not be able to run ads that appear to be coming from Chevy.
Ford shouldn't be allowed to run ads for Chevy cars that make them look bad, for example.
Why not?
Because society is better served by requiring companies to be truthful in their advertising. For example, not making false claims, and not pretending the message comes from company X when it's really from company Y. It's more efficient to have the FTC regulating this for us, than to have every citizen either acting on bad information or doing their own research on the ads they're considering.
Getting donations that add up to more than X dollars, and being financially supported while you go about using your time to express your own opinion in a public context - there's nothing ethically wrong with that, and should be nothing legally wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with paying to run commercials, either, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any limits. Ford shouldn't be allowed to run ads for Chevy cars that make them look bad, for example. This provision was just trying to help clarify where the opinion was coming from - the employer, not the blogger.
I have no love for political lobbyists, but the only way to have free speech is to have free speech; saying 'some kinds of speech are more equal than others' is absurd.
Personally, I'm very glad we have different kinds of speech. I'm glad companies aren't allowed to lie to me in their ads or packaging, for example.
Then the iPhone is not for you, at least in its current version.
Yes, that's what I said.:-)
Apple is missing lots of markets with their phone. In my opinion, that's the only way to make compelling products: Don't try to make a product that hits every market.
Nobody is suggesting that, as it would be obviously impossible. The question is, is it a good idea to exclude a market when it would be clearly possible to include it? It's impossible to say right now, because we don't know why they're doing it. The reasons they've given publicly are obviously bogus, so there must be something else. Control? Bad idea IMO. Money (they want to milk the customer by being the only source for apps)? Icky, but possibly a good business decision, at least short term. Part of the deal with AT&T? Maybe a necessary evil for the time being. Nothing else comes to mind immediately, but I think the truth will come out eventually.
My point was that the articles premise that the iPhone will probably flop because it doesn't (for instance) open Excel documents only stands up if you completely ignore the ways in which it is superior to existing products.
I agree, it's shortsighted to only compare certain features - it assumes the entire market values the same things as the author. Apple is betting that is not the case, and they've been pretty good so far. I wouldn't bet against them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not qualified to answer that question. And almost all the people who are qualified have a vested interest one way or the other, so it's very hard to tell.
I'm still not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that because it's very easy to make a flawed comparison with fascist states of the past, that we shouldn't talk about whether the US is now or is becoming a fascist state. But I hope that's not really what you're saying. You could be arguing that the actual comparisons made on this thread are faulty and attempting to paint the US as a genocidal state, but I haven't seen that. The main "fascism" post I saw included a very detailed definition of the term and didn't try to pull in any emotional or irrelevant stuff. So... what are you saying here?
Could be. I'm thinking the amendment would have been a good thing by lending more transparency, but I don't have a very strong opinion about it.
As I said, what I meant to say and didn't explain well, is that Ford cannot run ads that appear to be coming from Chevy.
Ah, so by "purpose" you mean "hardware platform". Gotcha.