Sorry, but refusing to sell a product just because it doesn't net you as much of a return (a.k.a. extortion) via repairs is a bullshit reason, and should not be tolerated.
Yes, this is why most software engineers turn down jobs at Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google and instead work at the Board of Education or Department of Human Services even though they pay less money.
You sound even worse. An independent has to specialize in a topic, like transmissions. Would you trust him to work on the cars computer system? A dealership say Ford, has to be able to work on all aspects of fords, same with gm, chyrsler and Toyota. And stand behind their repair.
I wouldn't trust an auto mechanic to work on my cars computer system, whether shade tree or genuine Ford service. Unfortunately, by computerizing cars to the hilt, they have made it where you have to pretty much throw away a $40,000 vehicle if something goes wrong in the software or firmware. Oh, they will continue to try replacing this thing or that thing until you go broke, but it is far cheaper to just leave it on the side of the road and go buy a 1990s vehicle that somebody can service.
He said the salesman offered him a $15-per-month maintenance package that included service for oil changes, belt repair and water pumps. "I said: 'You know it doesn't have any of those things,'" Mr. Kast recalled.
Manufacturers need to step aside and bring prices down. With way fewer components than an ICE car, electric cars should cost much less. Yet the greedy car makers are charging more than an ICE car, go figure. The cost per mile for an electric car should be very less and that goes for road taxes as well.
The quantity of components does not determine the price. The COST of those components determines the price. A 300 HP Ford CE engine brand new costs about $2,800. A set of 4 25 HP electric motors is about $6,000. The battery cost is about $2,000, so the locomotive parts for an EV is about $8,000. Then there is regenerative braking, which is unique to electric vehicles, and I don't know what the price would be for such a system.
So, they are not just ripping you off. Electric motive technology is absolutely more expensive than combustion motive technology.
New cars don't need to be stocked. They may as well be delivered directly to the customers who ordered them. Only for second-hand cars there is some sense in having something like a dealership.
Yes, because people want to buy cars that they have never driven, or even sat in, or looked at in real life to see if they like the color, or interacted with the controls to see if they like them, etc, etc.
Fuck that. I'm not picking up and moving because the car dealers have bought off my legislature.
You move.
I'll bet the citizenry has more money than the car dealers. Buy the legislature back. My guess is that the citizenry either likes it the way it is, or if anything they are willing to complain about it, but not willing to spend the money to fix the issue.
Because of this, or in spite of this, or regardless of this (choose one), I will not be doing any black Friday shopping. I choose not to commemorate the anniversary of the collapse of gold prices in the stock market.
Do newspapers also need to censor their old microfiche and archived paper copies, and also go door to door destroying any old copies that people or businesses may have laying around, and to the dump as well? If not, then why just pick on google, and not all other forms of media?
Also, they should probably destroy the memories of human beings that remember the accusations coming out on the news.
The point is kinda to be able to erase FALSE history. What if google search by your name brings up the case where you were accused and convicted of killing someone whily driving under influence, but at the same time doesn't show the follow ups where the real culprit was found out and everything agains you overturned?
So instead of erasing what DID happen, they obviously have failed to report on the overturn, and that needs to be added to the index, or the original story updated.
What TV needs to become is what it once was, a big dumb box that displays what you tell it to display. By trying to turn TVs into Smart TVs, all we do is put crappy, malware-friendly software onto our TV which can turn it into an expensive brick even though all of the actual display components are still working. Putting software on an appliance is just dumb.
Don't buy things with internet connection that don't need to have internet connection. Appliance companies specialize in appliances, not networking, not internet security, and not privacy. On any modern appliance, the thing that is going to break down first is the electronics. Washing machines used to last for decades, now they last for years, but require costly board replacements because the mechanical dials and switches have been replaced with software and firmware, and the boards don't last very long in environments in which you might find a washing machine. Instead of buying a new "start" knob when it wears out, or string a new wire if it breaks, you have to buy a $300 control board. It's a giant leap backwards in the name of progress.
It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.
It's too difficult to enforce and the 99% of abusers are making the other 1% look bad. So just shut it down. If you can't police it and you can't control it, then you can certainly shut it down. Then we will see the companies who REALLY can't find the talent they need in America and they will be willing to pay through the nose to get it. That is what is supposed to happen with a "shortage" of talent, prices go up. Not down.
I was replaced by a consulting company that was 100% made up of H1bs. They slept 6 people in a 2 bedroom apartment and shared a car. I had to train them to do my job and when I was done, I was let go.
This whole story since the day after the incident reads like a script from exactly what the tinfoil hat crowd said would happen. His father is laughing all the way to the bank and laughing at the foolishness of gullible Americans. They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama, and they have already cashed in on their successful plan and sounds like they will continue to do so via a lawsuit. Even though there weren't any actual damages, it will be cheaper for the school district to settle, and then raise taxes so that they can afford to keep the school functioning for the other students in the district.
Each year brings a fresh crop of computer science graduates into the industry, barely any of them having a clue about attacks like this. Many of them will make these mistakes and learn about defending against them the hard way.
Maybe a few schools teach about this now. Maybe a few companies will pair senior devs with new devs to transfer this knowledge on the job. Even so, there will be enough new programmers who don't know this, and enough companies who eschew senior talent as a cost-savings measure, that this vulnerability will continue to rear its ugly head.
It's not like they teach 'how to protect yourself from SQL injection' in school. In school, they teach people how to program in a clean room, where all data is 100% good and only one person at a time uses a system.
Wow, that article certainly is biased. Those poor, honest, people forced to work as slaves in prison camps. I guess the fact that they committed a crime and were caught and convicted means nothing. They should have more rights than the people they killed, raped and murdered did.
I also find it ironic that an article about penal slavery actually reports the wages that they are paid. Slaves don't get wages. Except when we tongue in cheek speak of our own slave wages because we think we deserve more pay.
I'd be interested to know who actually chose to use the word "worker." Was it the author or the editor and what is their ideological proclivity?
Hard to say, but given that the word 'slaves' was already used previously in the sentence, best practice in English writing is not to use the word again, but to use another similar word.
How is it factually incorrect to call a slave a worker?
You might ask a slave that question. I'm sure he'd happily clarify the distinction.
If there are actual slaves in existence (I'm guessing there are, I mean we have ISIS and we have dictators in Central and South America and Africa), then I highly doubt that he would clarify the distinction, happily or otherwise.
But it's also clear and un-ambiguous from the actual wording that they are referring slaves.
I can't see how anyone could read it and not know that the 'workers' are slaves.
It's clear and unambiguous to an adult, who already knows about slavery and the slave trade. If you're a child, learning about it in school, you don't already know those things. You might wonder what portion of those workers were slaves, or why it was called the slave trade if it was just a migration of workers.
Give kids some credit. They are not dumb.
Kids are also learning in their English class to look for synonyms and not use the same word repetitively, especially in the same sentence. I would expect a professional wordsmithing company like Mcgraw-Hill to do the same, as indeed they have.
Well, while technically correct, there's a slight difference between "someone else is paying for it" and "everyone chipping in a bit" to pay for something everyone profits from but would be too expensive otherwise.
Why would it be too expensive otherwise? What monumental earth shattering improvements have we made that have taken college from being a $5,000 a year investment to being instead a $25,000 a year investment in the last 20 years? Instead of making everybody cough up to keep feeding the pig that has grown too large, why don't we instead figure out where all the money is going and stop the waste?
Taxi companies can't just "do what uber does" because that would be illegal. They can't bid rides out and change prices during "peak pricing" because prices are regulated. They can't offer a price in advance because pricing is regulated by the mile and they do not know in advance what route they will end up taking. It is not the taxi companies that would have to change to compete with Uber, it would require the regulations to change to allow what Uber is doing to be legal, and then the cab companies could follow suit and shortly after would probably put Uber out of business.
The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.
It would be easy to compete if they didn't have to obey the law. If the city would reimburse all of their sunk costs on Taxi medallions, remove the regulations which regulate the prices that taxis can charge and remove the insurance and inspection requirements, then taxis could easily compete with uber and due to their economies of scale, they could crush Uber. But unfortunately, Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.
Freedom of the press does not mean that a private company has to print what you want them to. It means that the government can't interfere with your right to say it.
As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason. In fact, no reason is preferred, because people will sue you if you do it for a reason. Yes, even to refuse service to Police Officers, nursing mothers, doe-eyed orphans dying of cancer, as idiotic as that may be. Everybody else can also then refuse to do business with them because of that. Such is the nature of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but refusing to sell a product just because it doesn't net you as much of a return (a.k.a. extortion) via repairs is a bullshit reason, and should not be tolerated.
Yes, this is why most software engineers turn down jobs at Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google and instead work at the Board of Education or Department of Human Services even though they pay less money.
You sound even worse. An independent has to specialize in a topic, like transmissions. Would you trust him to work on the cars computer system? A dealership say Ford, has to be able to work on all aspects of fords, same with gm, chyrsler and Toyota. And stand behind their repair.
I wouldn't trust an auto mechanic to work on my cars computer system, whether shade tree or genuine Ford service. Unfortunately, by computerizing cars to the hilt, they have made it where you have to pretty much throw away a $40,000 vehicle if something goes wrong in the software or firmware. Oh, they will continue to try replacing this thing or that thing until you go broke, but it is far cheaper to just leave it on the side of the road and go buy a 1990s vehicle that somebody can service.
He said the salesman offered him a $15-per-month maintenance package that included service for oil changes, belt repair and water pumps. "I said: 'You know it doesn't have any of those things,'" Mr. Kast recalled.
Manufacturers need to step aside and bring prices down. With way fewer components than an ICE car, electric cars should cost much less. Yet the greedy car makers are charging more than an ICE car, go figure. The cost per mile for an electric car should be very less and that goes for road taxes as well.
The quantity of components does not determine the price. The COST of those components determines the price. A 300 HP Ford CE engine brand new costs about $2,800. A set of 4 25 HP electric motors is about $6,000. The battery cost is about $2,000, so the locomotive parts for an EV is about $8,000. Then there is regenerative braking, which is unique to electric vehicles, and I don't know what the price would be for such a system.
So, they are not just ripping you off. Electric motive technology is absolutely more expensive than combustion motive technology.
New cars don't need to be stocked. They may as well be delivered directly to the customers who ordered them. Only for second-hand cars there is some sense in having something like a dealership.
Yes, because people want to buy cars that they have never driven, or even sat in, or looked at in real life to see if they like the color, or interacted with the controls to see if they like them, etc, etc.
Fuck that. I'm not picking up and moving because the car dealers have bought off my legislature.
You move.
I'll bet the citizenry has more money than the car dealers. Buy the legislature back. My guess is that the citizenry either likes it the way it is, or if anything they are willing to complain about it, but not willing to spend the money to fix the issue.
..except that the dealers have made that illegal, for the most part. For our protection, of course.
That's what you get for allowing your dealers to make the law instead of your state government.
Because of this, or in spite of this, or regardless of this (choose one), I will not be doing any black Friday shopping. I choose not to commemorate the anniversary of the collapse of gold prices in the stock market.
Do newspapers also need to censor their old microfiche and archived paper copies, and also go door to door destroying any old copies that people or businesses may have laying around, and to the dump as well? If not, then why just pick on google, and not all other forms of media? Also, they should probably destroy the memories of human beings that remember the accusations coming out on the news.
The point is kinda to be able to erase FALSE history. What if google search by your name brings up the case where you were accused and convicted of killing someone whily driving under influence, but at the same time doesn't show the follow ups where the real culprit was found out and everything agains you overturned?
So instead of erasing what DID happen, they obviously have failed to report on the overturn, and that needs to be added to the index, or the original story updated.
What TV needs to become is what it once was, a big dumb box that displays what you tell it to display. By trying to turn TVs into Smart TVs, all we do is put crappy, malware-friendly software onto our TV which can turn it into an expensive brick even though all of the actual display components are still working. Putting software on an appliance is just dumb.
Don't buy things with internet connection that don't need to have internet connection. Appliance companies specialize in appliances, not networking, not internet security, and not privacy. On any modern appliance, the thing that is going to break down first is the electronics. Washing machines used to last for decades, now they last for years, but require costly board replacements because the mechanical dials and switches have been replaced with software and firmware, and the boards don't last very long in environments in which you might find a washing machine. Instead of buying a new "start" knob when it wears out, or string a new wire if it breaks, you have to buy a $300 control board. It's a giant leap backwards in the name of progress.
It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.
It's too difficult to enforce and the 99% of abusers are making the other 1% look bad. So just shut it down. If you can't police it and you can't control it, then you can certainly shut it down. Then we will see the companies who REALLY can't find the talent they need in America and they will be willing to pay through the nose to get it. That is what is supposed to happen with a "shortage" of talent, prices go up. Not down.
I was replaced by a consulting company that was 100% made up of H1bs. They slept 6 people in a 2 bedroom apartment and shared a car. I had to train them to do my job and when I was done, I was let go.
This whole story since the day after the incident reads like a script from exactly what the tinfoil hat crowd said would happen. His father is laughing all the way to the bank and laughing at the foolishness of gullible Americans. They not only duped the SJW crowd, but even duped Obama, and they have already cashed in on their successful plan and sounds like they will continue to do so via a lawsuit. Even though there weren't any actual damages, it will be cheaper for the school district to settle, and then raise taxes so that they can afford to keep the school functioning for the other students in the district.
Anonymous hates ISIS. They don't like the competition.
Each year brings a fresh crop of computer science graduates into the industry, barely any of them having a clue about attacks like this. Many of them will make these mistakes and learn about defending against them the hard way.
Maybe a few schools teach about this now. Maybe a few companies will pair senior devs with new devs to transfer this knowledge on the job. Even so, there will be enough new programmers who don't know this, and enough companies who eschew senior talent as a cost-savings measure, that this vulnerability will continue to rear its ugly head.
It's not like they teach 'how to protect yourself from SQL injection' in school. In school, they teach people how to program in a clean room, where all data is 100% good and only one person at a time uses a system.
You don't have to go that far to find "actual slaves". You can find quite a few right there in the state of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wow, that article certainly is biased. Those poor, honest, people forced to work as slaves in prison camps. I guess the fact that they committed a crime and were caught and convicted means nothing. They should have more rights than the people they killed, raped and murdered did.
I also find it ironic that an article about penal slavery actually reports the wages that they are paid. Slaves don't get wages. Except when we tongue in cheek speak of our own slave wages because we think we deserve more pay.
I'd be interested to know who actually chose to use the word "worker." Was it the author or the editor and what is their ideological proclivity?
Hard to say, but given that the word 'slaves' was already used previously in the sentence, best practice in English writing is not to use the word again, but to use another similar word.
You might ask a slave that question. I'm sure he'd happily clarify the distinction.
If there are actual slaves in existence (I'm guessing there are, I mean we have ISIS and we have dictators in Central and South America and Africa), then I highly doubt that he would clarify the distinction, happily or otherwise.
But it's also clear and un-ambiguous from the actual wording that they are referring slaves.
I can't see how anyone could read it and not know that the 'workers' are slaves.
It's clear and unambiguous to an adult, who already knows about slavery and the slave trade. If you're a child, learning about it in school, you don't already know those things. You might wonder what portion of those workers were slaves, or why it was called the slave trade if it was just a migration of workers.
Give kids some credit. They are not dumb.
Kids are also learning in their English class to look for synonyms and not use the same word repetitively, especially in the same sentence. I would expect a professional wordsmithing company like Mcgraw-Hill to do the same, as indeed they have.
Well, while technically correct, there's a slight difference between "someone else is paying for it" and "everyone chipping in a bit" to pay for something everyone profits from but would be too expensive otherwise.
Why would it be too expensive otherwise? What monumental earth shattering improvements have we made that have taken college from being a $5,000 a year investment to being instead a $25,000 a year investment in the last 20 years? Instead of making everybody cough up to keep feeding the pig that has grown too large, why don't we instead figure out where all the money is going and stop the waste?
Taxi companies can't just "do what uber does" because that would be illegal. They can't bid rides out and change prices during "peak pricing" because prices are regulated. They can't offer a price in advance because pricing is regulated by the mile and they do not know in advance what route they will end up taking. It is not the taxi companies that would have to change to compete with Uber, it would require the regulations to change to allow what Uber is doing to be legal, and then the cab companies could follow suit and shortly after would probably put Uber out of business.
The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.
It would be easy to compete if they didn't have to obey the law. If the city would reimburse all of their sunk costs on Taxi medallions, remove the regulations which regulate the prices that taxis can charge and remove the insurance and inspection requirements, then taxis could easily compete with uber and due to their economies of scale, they could crush Uber. But unfortunately, Uber chooses to continue to operate without paying any attention to the rules which other companies in the same sector have to obey.
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
Okay, so you only have the right to refuse service to anybody who is a white male. That doesn't seem like it should be legal.
Freedom of the press does not mean that a private company has to print what you want them to. It means that the government can't interfere with your right to say it.
As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason. In fact, no reason is preferred, because people will sue you if you do it for a reason. Yes, even to refuse service to Police Officers, nursing mothers, doe-eyed orphans dying of cancer, as idiotic as that may be. Everybody else can also then refuse to do business with them because of that. Such is the nature of the system.