I would take a small pay cut if it meant I could do my job while dressed truly casually like I would be in any non-office job. Really the pay is the only reason I tolerate the nonsense of having to maintain a separate wardrobe that I only wear during work hours.
Exactly. The ability to dress casual is part of the compensation package. If they take away the ability to dress casual, it is the same effect as reducing your health benefits, your vacation days or your salary. They have effectively reduced the compensation package for their employees without offering any accompanying increase in other areas to make up for it. The most obvious area would be salary, since they now have to buy a whole new wardrobe.
Now, in the military, I have a contract. I can't quit. They pay me a clothing allowance. However, HP employees aren't indentured, and can say "fuck you, I quit" if they don't like the dress code.
They pay them extra money every two weeks to buy their new wardrobe? Oh, well, then nevermind.
Probably for the same reason that Uber isn't yet regulated as a taxi service requiring all of the conventional trappings of a taxi service, because the regulatory agencies and the courts usually trail behind developments, based on developments.
Uber IS regulated as a taxi in some areas and as livery in other areas. They just choose not to obey the regulations.
They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so.
If you don't like this, why did you buy a device someone else can remove features from without your consultation?
Well, I think that the reason for the discussion is that people DIDN'T think that the company could remove the features, and now they have, and people are pissed.
The trouble with that line of thinking is that you don't really have any other option. Even when there actually is competition in the market for the device you need, their ToS is around 100% guaranteed to be just as bad.
As a consumer, our options these days basically amount to "go back to 1800s lifestyle" or "bend over and enjoy it" because every piece of tech sold, up to and including your phone, car, stereo, etc, all come with these types of strings attached and there's a whole lot of jack all you can do about it.
The trouble is that we have convinced ourselves that we "need" these devices, when we really don't. I mean, a few people might have to have one for their job, but for the most part, is it "want". And the people that "want" these devices (teenagers, college students, etc) seem to care less about the invasion of privacy and BS EULAs that no sane person would ever agree with. So the rest of us are stuck either not having the device, which means we have no input, or buying the device anyway, which is interpreted as "we love BS EULAs!".
I love drivers like you, you pay $40K for a car and sell them 3 years later for $10K. I buy cars like this for $10K and drive them for many years. Thanks for blowing $30K so that I can drive a fancy car.
Why would I sell my car to you for $10k in 3 years? It's been a year and a half already and the private party sale price is about $30k. Understandable since I bought it from a dealer and their prices are higher than private party. In another year and a half, it will probably be $25k. When I sell it in another 8 years or so, it will probably be about $10k, or higher with inflation. BTW, the original MSRP of this cars was $75k.
Are lawmakers suing Malamud for breaking a public law or a pay-per-view law?
In Georgia, in order to find out, you need to either buy the law book or get brought up on charges for that law, in which case they will actually tell you the law for free in a court of law. Then they will charge you for breaking the law.
Brought to you by SCOTUS, lapdogs of jackbooted persons throughout Murica.
They are allowed to speed, wear guns in places that don't allow guns, etc., so why shouldn't they also be allowed to not know the law? If they don't have to obey it, they don't really need to know it. Well, other than to apply it to other people.
Wake me up when your 30 year old computer can play GTA5. Until then, the comparison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Modern pcs and consoles are orders and orders of magnitude more complex than a rustbucket from 30 years ago.
That's not the point. The point is that the PC bought 30 years ago can still do all the things that it could do when it was bought 30 years ago. Your modern PC won't be able to play GTA5 online in 30 years, and probably not in 5 years. In 30 years, you may not be able to play GTA5 at all if you bought it from one of these phone home license shops, because they will probably go out of business.
By buying temporary licenses for games, you don't get to play the game as long or as many times as you want, and yet you have to pay full price for the game. This is the same sort of thing phone manufacturers do when they release an update such as this one. They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so. Making it an "optional" upgrade that oh by the way fixes lots of issues and security vulnerabilities that leave your phone open to hacking, does not make it any better.
And yet any time someone suggestes stronger regulation the entire IT community comes out up in arms and shouts "free market".
The greatest strength of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing it to be nimble and to take risks.
The greatest weakness of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing companies to shit all over thier customers.
They are able to do that because customers let them. If you want to use app X, you give app X access to way more information than app X needs, because consumers fundamentally don't care enough that apps compete on the basis of privacy.
There's a little difference in the enterprise space, of course. But on the consumer side, people just don't care.
You are correct. When companies crap all over their customers, the correct response would be to not buy the product, and let the company go out of business. But instead, people buy the product anyway and then gripe about it on the internet. Oooh! That will show them. No. They got your money. They don't read the internet. They assume crapping on their customers is the way the customers like it.
Microsoft removed the most played game of all time without warning. What makes you think this is even in the same ballpark?
Windows is an OS. The less bloatware and cruft is installed by default, the better. Let the consumer decide if they want Solitaire. Apparently it is available for download in Windows 10. At least, that is what I heard. I have Windows 7 and won't be updating until I have to. My Windows has Solitaire AND Spider Solitaire.
I could see owning my own car, and having it drive for Uber when I'm working. I'd know (for the most part) when I'd need it again, so I'd have it not make long trips just before I want to go home.
I would never allow my vehicle to be used by Uber or to let strangers drive around it. I don't even let my friends drive my car. I paid almost $40k for it, but even if it was only a $10k car, I wouldn't let other people drive it without a $10k deposit.
You'll change your tune as soon as no company will insure you for a human driven automobile, which will involve higher risk. You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Well, that is stupid. If they would insure you right now for only maybe $500 a year, and now all of these "safe" autonomous cars are out there, it seems to me your insurance premium would go down.
Insurance companies are there to make money. If they can make money off of you why would they not give you a policy?
And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?
Sounds like a good opportunity for an enterprising individual to open up a shop that sells cars that you can own and drive. In a Harris Poll 1/3 of applicants said they would NEVER buy an autonomous car. That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one, and the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one. I would fall in the "never" category.
Why wouldn't it have a steering column? What do you do in an emergency when the car doesn't know how to handle itself? Airplanes still have control yokes. Cars should still have steering wheels.
Also, why would a car suddenly start getting more usage rather than sitting in the driveway. Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR?
I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car, and where I can't take control of a car in an emergency.
Possibly as soon as you factor in insurance costs. Assuming that autonomous vehicles can live up to some of the hype related to safety, the insurance premiums should be a pittance compared to what many people currently pay. If you have a car that's only likely to be at fault (or better yet, in an accident at all if it can drive defensively well enough) in the event of catastrophic failure, it should cost far less to insure. The initial cost may be higher, but could be amortized over the length of its ownership in lowered insurance premiums.
The article implies that the car will be in use more often, which I take to mean that it will not be owned by average Joes, but by some commercial or government entity. So one would think insurance would not be a factor of significance to the average Joe.
Oops, they left out the part where there are designated flying areas for drones and other model aircraft, thereby making this mostly a story that you can't do whatever the hell you want on somebody else's property.
"120-or-so-million-year-old". Anything past 100 000 years is nothing but wild speculation, among other things due the complete lack of knowledge about factors that will affect carbon dating. Going past 100 000 years, and your're doing nothing but carbon-schmarbon dating.
No, no, you see we have always known the exact quantity of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere and therefore Carbon dating is extremely reliable. The fact that we are now changing the percentage of C14 in the air and worried that C14 dating will not work reliably because we don't know the proper percentages of C14 coexists perfectly with us knowing the exact quantity of C14 150 million years ago.
Agree. When I was in junior high I worked as a dishwasher. I pretty much had to have a radio going or a book or something to keep my mind from turning into goo. The same with driving. Driving is so repetitive and boring (other than the moments of sheer terror), that having a small distraction like music or talk radio keeps you from falling asleep or going brain dead. But it has to be the sort of distraction that your brain can instantly tune out when it needs to concentrate. Texting sure would not qualify.
I frequently listen to music whilst working , studying , coding etc. Does that count as multitasking? AFAIK it only enhances my concentration and cuts off ambient noise.
I occasionally turn on music while coding, but I find it is distracting. If I hear a song I like on Pandora and am not sure if I gave it a thumbs up, I flip over to see if I did. Other times, I will find myself coding in silence, as the music cut off several hours earlier and I did not notice it.
We could do that in the US if it wasn't for the Republicans. They keep using more and more energy in their drive to destroy Earth. They hate the Earth nearly as much as they hate us. They are so full of hate. So full. They are the reason we can't save the planet. Can't save it.
Thank goodness the democrats have figured out how to live without consuming any resources. What a shining example the democrats are, so that they can point at the republicans and blame them for all of the Earth's ills.
They still have 24 packs, but the 20 packs cost what the 24 packs used to cost. And yes, there are 20 packs out there. Wal-Mart Amazon
Office Depot seems to only sell the 24 packs. For $12.99. 3 years ago I was stocking soda for our soda machine and the 24 pack cases were $6.99, sometimes $4.99 on sale. Wal-mart sells the 20 pack cases for $6.48, which at first makes you think the price of a case of soda has gone down, until you see that it went down in price by 8% and down in quantity by 20%.
Slashdot Mirror
I would take a small pay cut if it meant I could do my job while dressed truly casually like I would be in any non-office job. Really the pay is the only reason I tolerate the nonsense of having to maintain a separate wardrobe that I only wear during work hours.
Exactly. The ability to dress casual is part of the compensation package. If they take away the ability to dress casual, it is the same effect as reducing your health benefits, your vacation days or your salary. They have effectively reduced the compensation package for their employees without offering any accompanying increase in other areas to make up for it. The most obvious area would be salary, since they now have to buy a whole new wardrobe.
It's almost like they do every two weeks.
Now, in the military, I have a contract. I can't quit. They pay me a clothing allowance. However, HP employees aren't indentured, and can say "fuck you, I quit" if they don't like the dress code.
They pay them extra money every two weeks to buy their new wardrobe? Oh, well, then nevermind.
Probably for the same reason that Uber isn't yet regulated as a taxi service requiring all of the conventional trappings of a taxi service, because the regulatory agencies and the courts usually trail behind developments, based on developments.
Uber IS regulated as a taxi in some areas and as livery in other areas. They just choose not to obey the regulations.
They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so.
If you don't like this, why did you buy a device someone else can remove features from without your consultation?
Well, I think that the reason for the discussion is that people DIDN'T think that the company could remove the features, and now they have, and people are pissed.
The trouble with that line of thinking is that you don't really have any other option. Even when there actually is competition in the market for the device you need, their ToS is around 100% guaranteed to be just as bad. As a consumer, our options these days basically amount to "go back to 1800s lifestyle" or "bend over and enjoy it" because every piece of tech sold, up to and including your phone, car, stereo, etc, all come with these types of strings attached and there's a whole lot of jack all you can do about it.
The trouble is that we have convinced ourselves that we "need" these devices, when we really don't. I mean, a few people might have to have one for their job, but for the most part, is it "want". And the people that "want" these devices (teenagers, college students, etc) seem to care less about the invasion of privacy and BS EULAs that no sane person would ever agree with. So the rest of us are stuck either not having the device, which means we have no input, or buying the device anyway, which is interpreted as "we love BS EULAs!".
I paid almost $40k for it
I love drivers like you, you pay $40K for a car and sell them 3 years later for $10K. I buy cars like this for $10K and drive them for many years. Thanks for blowing $30K so that I can drive a fancy car.
Why would I sell my car to you for $10k in 3 years? It's been a year and a half already and the private party sale price is about $30k. Understandable since I bought it from a dealer and their prices are higher than private party. In another year and a half, it will probably be $25k. When I sell it in another 8 years or so, it will probably be about $10k, or higher with inflation. BTW, the original MSRP of this cars was $75k.
Are lawmakers suing Malamud for breaking a public law or a pay-per-view law?
In Georgia, in order to find out, you need to either buy the law book or get brought up on charges for that law, in which case they will actually tell you the law for free in a court of law. Then they will charge you for breaking the law.
For Cops, Ignorance of the Law Is an Excuse
http://www.vnews.com/opinion/1...
Brought to you by SCOTUS, lapdogs of jackbooted persons throughout Murica.
They are allowed to speed, wear guns in places that don't allow guns, etc., so why shouldn't they also be allowed to not know the law? If they don't have to obey it, they don't really need to know it. Well, other than to apply it to other people.
Wake me up when your 30 year old computer can play GTA5. Until then, the comparison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Modern pcs and consoles are orders and orders of magnitude more complex than a rustbucket from 30 years ago.
That's not the point. The point is that the PC bought 30 years ago can still do all the things that it could do when it was bought 30 years ago. Your modern PC won't be able to play GTA5 online in 30 years, and probably not in 5 years. In 30 years, you may not be able to play GTA5 at all if you bought it from one of these phone home license shops, because they will probably go out of business.
By buying temporary licenses for games, you don't get to play the game as long or as many times as you want, and yet you have to pay full price for the game. This is the same sort of thing phone manufacturers do when they release an update such as this one. They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so. Making it an "optional" upgrade that oh by the way fixes lots of issues and security vulnerabilities that leave your phone open to hacking, does not make it any better.
So sick of your games, I'll set your truck to flames And watch it blow up, blow up, (ha-ha-ha) tell me
Lucky you posted anonymously. The last person to make a song about vehicular property destruction went on to make almost a hundred million dollars.
And yet any time someone suggestes stronger regulation the entire IT community comes out up in arms and shouts "free market".
The greatest strength of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing it to be nimble and to take risks.
The greatest weakness of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing companies to shit all over thier customers.
They are able to do that because customers let them. If you want to use app X, you give app X access to way more information than app X needs, because consumers fundamentally don't care enough that apps compete on the basis of privacy.
There's a little difference in the enterprise space, of course. But on the consumer side, people just don't care.
You are correct. When companies crap all over their customers, the correct response would be to not buy the product, and let the company go out of business. But instead, people buy the product anyway and then gripe about it on the internet. Oooh! That will show them. No. They got your money. They don't read the internet. They assume crapping on their customers is the way the customers like it.
Microsoft removed the most played game of all time without warning. What makes you think this is even in the same ballpark?
Windows is an OS. The less bloatware and cruft is installed by default, the better. Let the consumer decide if they want Solitaire. Apparently it is available for download in Windows 10. At least, that is what I heard. I have Windows 7 and won't be updating until I have to. My Windows has Solitaire AND Spider Solitaire.
I could see owning my own car, and having it drive for Uber when I'm working. I'd know (for the most part) when I'd need it again, so I'd have it not make long trips just before I want to go home.
I would never allow my vehicle to be used by Uber or to let strangers drive around it. I don't even let my friends drive my car. I paid almost $40k for it, but even if it was only a $10k car, I wouldn't let other people drive it without a $10k deposit.
You'll change your tune as soon as no company will insure you for a human driven automobile, which will involve higher risk. You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Well, that is stupid. If they would insure you right now for only maybe $500 a year, and now all of these "safe" autonomous cars are out there, it seems to me your insurance premium would go down.
Insurance companies are there to make money. If they can make money off of you why would they not give you a policy?
And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?
Sounds like a good opportunity for an enterprising individual to open up a shop that sells cars that you can own and drive. In a Harris Poll 1/3 of applicants said they would NEVER buy an autonomous car. That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one, and the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one. I would fall in the "never" category.
Why wouldn't it have a steering column? What do you do in an emergency when the car doesn't know how to handle itself? Airplanes still have control yokes. Cars should still have steering wheels.
Also, why would a car suddenly start getting more usage rather than sitting in the driveway. Are they also assuming that when cars become autonomous, that we will no longer own them, but just call for one when we need one?BR? I am not in favor of a world where i can't own a car, and where I can't take control of a car in an emergency.
Possibly as soon as you factor in insurance costs. Assuming that autonomous vehicles can live up to some of the hype related to safety, the insurance premiums should be a pittance compared to what many people currently pay. If you have a car that's only likely to be at fault (or better yet, in an accident at all if it can drive defensively well enough) in the event of catastrophic failure, it should cost far less to insure. The initial cost may be higher, but could be amortized over the length of its ownership in lowered insurance premiums.
The article implies that the car will be in use more often, which I take to mean that it will not be owned by average Joes, but by some commercial or government entity. So one would think insurance would not be a factor of significance to the average Joe.
Oops, they left out the part where there are designated flying areas for drones and other model aircraft, thereby making this mostly a story that you can't do whatever the hell you want on somebody else's property.
"120-or-so-million-year-old". Anything past 100 000 years is nothing but wild speculation, among other things due the complete lack of knowledge about factors that will affect carbon dating. Going past 100 000 years, and your're doing nothing but carbon-schmarbon dating.
No, no, you see we have always known the exact quantity of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere and therefore Carbon dating is extremely reliable. The fact that we are now changing the percentage of C14 in the air and worried that C14 dating will not work reliably because we don't know the proper percentages of C14 coexists perfectly with us knowing the exact quantity of C14 150 million years ago.
Depends on the task at hand.
Agree. When I was in junior high I worked as a dishwasher. I pretty much had to have a radio going or a book or something to keep my mind from turning into goo. The same with driving. Driving is so repetitive and boring (other than the moments of sheer terror), that having a small distraction like music or talk radio keeps you from falling asleep or going brain dead. But it has to be the sort of distraction that your brain can instantly tune out when it needs to concentrate. Texting sure would not qualify.
The assumption is that people can multi-task and that performance does not suffer because of multi-tasking.
That is kind of a dumb assumption considering that dozens of studies have already shown otherwise.
I frequently listen to music whilst working , studying , coding etc. Does that count as multitasking? AFAIK it only enhances my concentration and cuts off ambient noise .
I occasionally turn on music while coding, but I find it is distracting. If I hear a song I like on Pandora and am not sure if I gave it a thumbs up, I flip over to see if I did. Other times, I will find myself coding in silence, as the music cut off several hours earlier and I did not notice it.
We could do that in the US if it wasn't for the Republicans. They keep using more and more energy in their drive to destroy Earth. They hate the Earth nearly as much as they hate us. They are so full of hate. So full. They are the reason we can't save the planet. Can't save it.
Thank goodness the democrats have figured out how to live without consuming any resources. What a shining example the democrats are, so that they can point at the republicans and blame them for all of the Earth's ills.
No, I asked for raises several times a year, and was always told lies and delay tactics.
you're still there, proof positive
I am? Could have fooled me.
They still have 24 packs, but the 20 packs cost what the 24 packs used to cost. And yes, there are 20 packs out there.
Wal-Mart
Amazon
Office Depot seems to only sell the 24 packs. For $12.99. 3 years ago I was stocking soda for our soda machine and the 24 pack cases were $6.99, sometimes $4.99 on sale. Wal-mart sells the 20 pack cases for $6.48, which at first makes you think the price of a case of soda has gone down, until you see that it went down in price by 8% and down in quantity by 20%.