I've gotten a bill from a rental with a pre-existing window chip. It was even noted on the walk-around. I pointed that out, and they agreed to go after the guy who had it before me. They will try their best to make *someone* pay. Even if unethically. Likely, they would try to make the guy *after* me pay for it, even with proof it was pre-existing, if he didn't note it on the damage card (it wasn't listed on mine, but I added it).
Some places are better than others. I've rented a car in Bethel, AK that looked like it was rolled. There was about 1/4" of mud coving the floor, and half the plastic trim inside was falling off. most of the time for the first day, every time I tried to close the door, I'd end up pulling out some piece off the car door.
They didn't inspect the car for damage before accepting it back. Though they did initially apologize because they didn't have time to clean it before I got there (they had a fleet of something like 3 cars, and I got the worst one, as it was busy then).
You complain about the driving, but did you drive?
I've driven in many places, and the chaos from the backseat seems less from the front. Unless you are just a bad driver.
I opened this article to point out that the summary is likely impossible. China is one of the few countries that didn't join the International Driving Convention. So, unlike most of the world, it's not legal to get an international license and drive there. You *must* get a local license. So the summary of "So the next time you're in China, and you need a car, just hit up the biggest vending machine you can find." is bad (and likely illegal) advice. When I was there, I looked at getting a license, and it was explained to me that the tests are only given in Chinese, so it'd be hard for a foreigner to pass, but there are services advertised that state they will be a translation service (but sound like you pay someone to take your test for you). I didn't want a license that bad, so I just let it go.
Absolutely false. Private schools cost less than public schools and when a reasonable percentage of the schools are private only the very best of them can afford to get rid of disruptive students.
In the US, all special needs students are herded into public schools. As those students cost much more per student, they drive "average" costs up. Having been to private schools in the US, they most certainly do get rid of disruptive students. So those disruptive students end up in public school, dragging down education and rising costs. The public schools have little recourse to exclude students, unless those students commit a violent felony against another student or teacher (yes, that's right, a conviction of murder against a non-school target is often not enough to justify expulsion). And because the students know that, they often push the limits.
In the US, right now, if you gauge in-classroom expenses, private schools are more expensive. That it could be different isn't arguable. Everything "could be" different.
Oh, and you should update Wikipedia. You say
Sweden, where all schools are private
But Wikipedia says
The vast majority of schools in Sweden are municipally run,
I'd believe Wikipedia over some random guy on the Internet, so which is it, are "all" schools private, or are "the vast majority" government run? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden
The problem in the US is you pay for generation and the service you receive is grid connection. If tomorrow, every man-covered private land in the US were covered by solar, we'd generate more solar power than the grid uses. So the utility would "generate" $0 worth of electricity, according to current readings. But would still be providing a valuable and expensive service. In many cases it's a long-term (or permanent) contract that holds them to such specific pricing, so the utilities have no way to fix the issue.
Outside the US, there are places where you pay $1 a day for a connection, then $0.20 per kWh. So if the person wants a connection for "backup" of their solar system, they'd be paying for it. In the US, there is generally $0 per day for a connection and roughly the same price per kWh, so someone who generates 100% of their own power, but has a "free" backup link is costing the utility money, but generating no income.
That's the situation the utilities are faced with, and rather than trying to re-negotiate their contracts, they just lie about how "bad" solar is. Which is why we get them fighting so hard.
According to BP's accounting, all the oil they pump out of the ground in Alaska is a free gift from the State of Alaska. Wouldn't you consider billions of dollars of free oil a subsidy?
Think about that, they get the sun and wind for free, and the solar panels and windmills paid for by my tax dollars, and they still can't make any money.
If you can't make 10-20% profit, it's "not making any money". Right now is a really good time for people to put panels on their roofs. Why? Because the return is usually about 10%. Unless you have a mortgage of 8% or worse, you should borrow on your mortgage to put them in. It'll save you money. Yes, the risk averse corporations can't make guaranteed 20% on them, so they avoid them, and slander them to reduce competition, but that doesn't mean they "don't make money".. The real statement is "they don't make me suffiient profit" But greedy companies avoid saying it that way, because it makes them look greedy.
Private schools cost more than public schools, and private schools get rid of disruptive students, something public schools aren't allowed to do. Remove the political shackles on public schools, and 25% to 50% of the "cost" would disappear overnight.
The government companies are inefficient because the voters are stupid. The IRS and SSA are *very* efficient, but wastefully stupid at the same time. Because they are efficient in doing stupid things, mainly because the stupid things are required by politicians. That's not a problem with the government, but with the voters.
Dallas Water Utilities is a very efficient government company. And the "Fees" imposted by SSA are about 1/10th what you'd pay a private company for the same service. The IRS is about 1/10th the cost of getting a private company to handle the AP/AR functions (And the IRS does much more than "just" AP/AR).
Most government companies are much more efficient than private companies. The biggest complaint is that they are too efficient in a direction set by the politicians. The problem with government companies is that their direction is set by politicians. Not that they are inefficient in executing their stupid policies.
When away from home, I have the 800-number for the bank. On the card. When I travel internationally, I put a stickey-note on every card with the bank's toll-free numbers from every country on my itinerary. Reaching the bank isn't an issue while on the road. I've never had someone ask for ID over the phone. At most, they ask for your most recent transaction, and standard account info anyone would know off the top of their head, like SSN and address.
I won't argue that they are uncomfortable, but I would argue that they are designed to be such.
So you are arguing that they didn't deliberately put uncomfortable chairs in to reduce the time of those waiting? I have spoken with people who had influence of such decisions and you are wrong. How can I prove that your ignorant opinion is false? I can't. I don't have printed documentation, nor links to sites. I only have direct evidence, and you have my witness testimony, you have stated is worthless.
A road isn't that comfortable to lie on either, compared to a bed... or even compared to a grassy hill, but that doesn't mean that a road is actually designed to be uncomfortable to lie on... it wasn't built for that purpose in the first place.
I'm stating that they purposefully built the chairs to be deliberately uncomfortable for some expected use cases. A road isn't built deliberately uncomfortable (except when they put humps and bumps on it).
When I've had issues, some quick arguing with the bank got money invented from nowhere and put in my account. Yes, it would delay the checkout from the hotel by a few minutes, but it will get the hotel bill paid. I'm sure you can find some cases where someone was a jackass to their bank, who then refused to fix the issue on the customer's time frame. But I've had this issue before, and the bank took care of it outside the minimum contractual requirements.
They tested every drive out there, and only shared the results from those that made the Intel look good. A "study" commissioned by Intel would have results consistent with what was presented.
Your argument is that cars are unacceptably poor reliability because Ford (or other maker you don't like) makes cars. Just because Escorts were crap doesn't mean that cars are crap.
For example, an unpadded chair may not be the most comfortable thing to sit in for a prolonged period, but that doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to actually *BE* uncomfortable.
Have you ever been to a bus station or airport? Many (all or almost all in the USA and few outside the USA) are deliberately designed to be uncomfortable. They have arm rests to ensure you can't lay across the seats. That is an increased cost to make them more uncomfortable. Now, imagine that, but with hard plastic chairs with a deep butt curve, but more narrow that the average butt. They are uncomfortable for almost all people. Deliberately so, as they explicitly want to discourage loitering (waiting for family to get released). It's a deliberate punishment for the family of criminals, part of being hard on criminals. Or so I've been told by the Dallas Police Department.
You ask questions, but when the answer is "Dallas Police Department told me so", you consider that an unanswered question. It isn't unanswered, and even gives a source. Yet you accept none of the answers. Why?
Just because you don't know what a "free market" is, doesn't make me wrong. Look it up. The actual ecomomics definition, not the one used by politicians and talk show hosts.
You can be both fully rational and have all the information and still make the worst possible choice.
The prisonner's dilemma doesn't apply. It is "rational" if you assume the other person to work in their self interest, rather than the common good, to select the "worst choice". The dilemma comes down to risk aversion when the risk is non random. Since the risk is non-random, then there is no "rational" deduction of the proper course of action.
Or, if you believe that the "rational" choice is always to refuse to speak, then most people taking the "test" have been brainwashed into irrational misanthropic beliefs.
In the real world, with only vague hints and your mind dimmed by prejudice, your "decisions" are either random or forced upon you by others and then proudly assumed as your own.
If decisions were rational, like religious choice, then the correlation with parent's beliefs would be much lower than reality. So decisions are forced upon us. The "real" question should be, how much branwashing is OK, and at what point does it become abuse?
Yet, most on Slashdot think themselves logical enough to be perfectly rational at all times (the Spock wannabees). Yet the aggressive and emotional arguments given when I point out the fallacy indicates otherwise.
This is both false and vacuous. Which political party/stance is the sole "rational" choice when one has "all the information"? Who has "all the information"?
In the "Free Market" everyone has "all the information." That the ideal doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't discuss it. I figured the lower-hanging fruit would be to acknowledge people are not rational. We are emotional beings, not logical beings, despite all the Spock-wannabees on Slashdot. Given how emotional they get over calling Star Wars "true" sci-fi, if they were logical at all, they'd recognize it.
Actual parenting is nothing like your thought process, which, in terms of practical benefit, seems about equivalent to wanking over an Ayn Rand novel while making bizarre proclamations as to what is "rational" for others' choices in situations you have no involvement in, or knowledge about.
I'm a parent, and not a Randroid, so whatever point you were trying to make doesn't apply to me, at all. Try your irrational guesses again. Though that won't improve their accuracy. I never said what was rational, just that rational + infinite information = correct. Your argument is that someone who believes the truth must like Ayn Rand. That's a silly argument. You are obviously not rational. Why do you hate Ayn Rand so much?
Police stations are deliberately designed to be inconvenient to wait in. I'm suggesting that the problem is you, being holier than thou, without any direct knowledge of what I'm describing. You know more about Dallas police stations than I do, and you've never been in one. You are wrong. And you are ignorant. I have no issue waiting. I have an issue with dealing with deliberately rude people in a place designed to be as uncomfortable as possible. No matter how many times I say it, you respond indicating that it's my problem for being impatient.
And you've ignored the core fact that was relevant. The Police request you call 911. By the recommendation I received from multiple police at different times and in different situations, they obviously prefer you don't go by the station. The police don't want walk-ins. So why are you so insistent that I should do it? It's not illegal in TX to call 911 to report a petty theft that is not in progress (and is, as I mentioned, recommended). So why do you have an issue with me following the law and the recommendations of police?
If you could elaborate more on how they made you feel like a criminal, I may have more information to draw a conclusion from.
You ignore the bits that don't agree with your incorrect pre-conceptions, and take anything I say that's borderline out of context to use against me. I've been there. I know reality. If you don't believe reality. Drive or fly to Dallas and check it out for yourself. Convincing some argumentative person on the Internet is impossible, so I don't try that hard. I give the answer. You can choose to ignore it or argue about it, but you can't change it.
When the only difference between a "guest" and a criminal is whether you have to ask for permission to go to the toilet, they are sufficiently similar for my purposes. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go file a police report in Dallas. Let me know which substations you tried at.
Yes, I'm a rabid leftie to the right, and a rabid conservative to the liberals. If everyone thinks I'm wrong, I must be doing something right, especially seeing what "they" do, when given the chance.
So your stance is emotional abuse isn't a bad thing.
Oh, and "hate laws" aren't about hurting feelings, but trying to intimidate millions when you skin and torture some undesired minority as an example for what happens when "your kind" dates white women. Since you hate distinguishing punishment based on motive, you must not recognize the varied levels of homicide, based on motive and intentions (murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc.).
A rational person wouldn't make a mistake if they have all the information, unless they aren't being rational at the moment of the decision. So, if they are not rational, then that invalidates my requirement. If they are rational, but have insufficient information for the correct decision to be reached, then what's the problem if some group is deliberately holding back information? If it's the parents deliberately harming the child by restricting information that would enable rational choices, then that's Child Abuse. A parent deliberately causing harm is abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gotten a bill from a rental with a pre-existing window chip. It was even noted on the walk-around. I pointed that out, and they agreed to go after the guy who had it before me. They will try their best to make *someone* pay. Even if unethically. Likely, they would try to make the guy *after* me pay for it, even with proof it was pre-existing, if he didn't note it on the damage card (it wasn't listed on mine, but I added it).
Some places are better than others. I've rented a car in Bethel, AK that looked like it was rolled. There was about 1/4" of mud coving the floor, and half the plastic trim inside was falling off. most of the time for the first day, every time I tried to close the door, I'd end up pulling out some piece off the car door.
They didn't inspect the car for damage before accepting it back. Though they did initially apologize because they didn't have time to clean it before I got there (they had a fleet of something like 3 cars, and I got the worst one, as it was busy then).
You complain about the driving, but did you drive?
I've driven in many places, and the chaos from the backseat seems less from the front. Unless you are just a bad driver.
I opened this article to point out that the summary is likely impossible. China is one of the few countries that didn't join the International Driving Convention. So, unlike most of the world, it's not legal to get an international license and drive there. You *must* get a local license. So the summary of "So the next time you're in China, and you need a car, just hit up the biggest vending machine you can find." is bad (and likely illegal) advice. When I was there, I looked at getting a license, and it was explained to me that the tests are only given in Chinese, so it'd be hard for a foreigner to pass, but there are services advertised that state they will be a translation service (but sound like you pay someone to take your test for you). I didn't want a license that bad, so I just let it go.
Absolutely false. Private schools cost less than public schools and when a reasonable percentage of the schools are private only the very best of them can afford to get rid of disruptive students.
In the US, all special needs students are herded into public schools. As those students cost much more per student, they drive "average" costs up. Having been to private schools in the US, they most certainly do get rid of disruptive students. So those disruptive students end up in public school, dragging down education and rising costs. The public schools have little recourse to exclude students, unless those students commit a violent felony against another student or teacher (yes, that's right, a conviction of murder against a non-school target is often not enough to justify expulsion). And because the students know that, they often push the limits.
In the US, right now, if you gauge in-classroom expenses, private schools are more expensive. That it could be different isn't arguable. Everything "could be" different.
Oh, and you should update Wikipedia. You say
Sweden, where all schools are private
But Wikipedia says
The vast majority of schools in Sweden are municipally run,
I'd believe Wikipedia over some random guy on the Internet, so which is it, are "all" schools private, or are "the vast majority" government run? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden
The problem in the US is you pay for generation and the service you receive is grid connection. If tomorrow, every man-covered private land in the US were covered by solar, we'd generate more solar power than the grid uses. So the utility would "generate" $0 worth of electricity, according to current readings. But would still be providing a valuable and expensive service. In many cases it's a long-term (or permanent) contract that holds them to such specific pricing, so the utilities have no way to fix the issue.
Outside the US, there are places where you pay $1 a day for a connection, then $0.20 per kWh. So if the person wants a connection for "backup" of their solar system, they'd be paying for it. In the US, there is generally $0 per day for a connection and roughly the same price per kWh, so someone who generates 100% of their own power, but has a "free" backup link is costing the utility money, but generating no income.
That's the situation the utilities are faced with, and rather than trying to re-negotiate their contracts, they just lie about how "bad" solar is. Which is why we get them fighting so hard.
Think about that, they get the sun and wind for free, and the solar panels and windmills paid for by my tax dollars, and they still can't make any money.
If you can't make 10-20% profit, it's "not making any money". Right now is a really good time for people to put panels on their roofs. Why? Because the return is usually about 10%. Unless you have a mortgage of 8% or worse, you should borrow on your mortgage to put them in. It'll save you money. Yes, the risk averse corporations can't make guaranteed 20% on them, so they avoid them, and slander them to reduce competition, but that doesn't mean they "don't make money".. The real statement is "they don't make me suffiient profit" But greedy companies avoid saying it that way, because it makes them look greedy.
Private schools cost more than public schools, and private schools get rid of disruptive students, something public schools aren't allowed to do. Remove the political shackles on public schools, and 25% to 50% of the "cost" would disappear overnight.
The government companies are inefficient because the voters are stupid. The IRS and SSA are *very* efficient, but wastefully stupid at the same time. Because they are efficient in doing stupid things, mainly because the stupid things are required by politicians. That's not a problem with the government, but with the voters.
Dallas Water Utilities is a very efficient government company. And the "Fees" imposted by SSA are about 1/10th what you'd pay a private company for the same service. The IRS is about 1/10th the cost of getting a private company to handle the AP/AR functions (And the IRS does much more than "just" AP/AR).
Most government companies are much more efficient than private companies. The biggest complaint is that they are too efficient in a direction set by the politicians. The problem with government companies is that their direction is set by politicians. Not that they are inefficient in executing their stupid policies.
I am suggesting that they put in functional chairs that are cheap...and while unarguably uncomfortable, are not expressly chosen for that fact,
And I'm stating that I've been told by the Dallas Police Department that they were chosen expressly for that fact.
So what's the argument? You think I'm lying? Or that the representative of DPD that I talked to was lying?
When away from home, I have the 800-number for the bank. On the card. When I travel internationally, I put a stickey-note on every card with the bank's toll-free numbers from every country on my itinerary. Reaching the bank isn't an issue while on the road. I've never had someone ask for ID over the phone. At most, they ask for your most recent transaction, and standard account info anyone would know off the top of their head, like SSN and address.
I won't argue that they are uncomfortable, but I would argue that they are designed to be such.
So you are arguing that they didn't deliberately put uncomfortable chairs in to reduce the time of those waiting? I have spoken with people who had influence of such decisions and you are wrong. How can I prove that your ignorant opinion is false? I can't. I don't have printed documentation, nor links to sites. I only have direct evidence, and you have my witness testimony, you have stated is worthless.
A road isn't that comfortable to lie on either, compared to a bed... or even compared to a grassy hill, but that doesn't mean that a road is actually designed to be uncomfortable to lie on... it wasn't built for that purpose in the first place.
I'm stating that they purposefully built the chairs to be deliberately uncomfortable for some expected use cases. A road isn't built deliberately uncomfortable (except when they put humps and bumps on it).
When I've had issues, some quick arguing with the bank got money invented from nowhere and put in my account. Yes, it would delay the checkout from the hotel by a few minutes, but it will get the hotel bill paid. I'm sure you can find some cases where someone was a jackass to their bank, who then refused to fix the issue on the customer's time frame. But I've had this issue before, and the bank took care of it outside the minimum contractual requirements.
They tested every drive out there, and only shared the results from those that made the Intel look good. A "study" commissioned by Intel would have results consistent with what was presented.
Then get a lithium one, smaller, lighter, and easier to ship. Replacement batteries are easier to swap as well.
Your argument is that cars are unacceptably poor reliability because Ford (or other maker you don't like) makes cars. Just because Escorts were crap doesn't mean that cars are crap.
For example, an unpadded chair may not be the most comfortable thing to sit in for a prolonged period, but that doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to actually *BE* uncomfortable.
Have you ever been to a bus station or airport? Many (all or almost all in the USA and few outside the USA) are deliberately designed to be uncomfortable. They have arm rests to ensure you can't lay across the seats. That is an increased cost to make them more uncomfortable. Now, imagine that, but with hard plastic chairs with a deep butt curve, but more narrow that the average butt. They are uncomfortable for almost all people. Deliberately so, as they explicitly want to discourage loitering (waiting for family to get released). It's a deliberate punishment for the family of criminals, part of being hard on criminals. Or so I've been told by the Dallas Police Department.
You ask questions, but when the answer is "Dallas Police Department told me so", you consider that an unanswered question. It isn't unanswered, and even gives a source. Yet you accept none of the answers. Why?
Just because you don't know what a "free market" is, doesn't make me wrong. Look it up. The actual ecomomics definition, not the one used by politicians and talk show hosts.
You can be both fully rational and have all the information and still make the worst possible choice.
The prisonner's dilemma doesn't apply. It is "rational" if you assume the other person to work in their self interest, rather than the common good, to select the "worst choice". The dilemma comes down to risk aversion when the risk is non random. Since the risk is non-random, then there is no "rational" deduction of the proper course of action.
Or, if you believe that the "rational" choice is always to refuse to speak, then most people taking the "test" have been brainwashed into irrational misanthropic beliefs.
In the real world, with only vague hints and your mind dimmed by prejudice, your "decisions" are either random or forced upon you by others and then proudly assumed as your own.
If decisions were rational, like religious choice, then the correlation with parent's beliefs would be much lower than reality. So decisions are forced upon us. The "real" question should be, how much branwashing is OK, and at what point does it become abuse?
Yet, most on Slashdot think themselves logical enough to be perfectly rational at all times (the Spock wannabees). Yet the aggressive and emotional arguments given when I point out the fallacy indicates otherwise.
This is both false and vacuous. Which political party/stance is the sole "rational" choice when one has "all the information"? Who has "all the information"?
In the "Free Market" everyone has "all the information." That the ideal doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't discuss it. I figured the lower-hanging fruit would be to acknowledge people are not rational. We are emotional beings, not logical beings, despite all the Spock-wannabees on Slashdot. Given how emotional they get over calling Star Wars "true" sci-fi, if they were logical at all, they'd recognize it.
Actual parenting is nothing like your thought process, which, in terms of practical benefit, seems about equivalent to wanking over an Ayn Rand novel while making bizarre proclamations as to what is "rational" for others' choices in situations you have no involvement in, or knowledge about.
I'm a parent, and not a Randroid, so whatever point you were trying to make doesn't apply to me, at all. Try your irrational guesses again. Though that won't improve their accuracy. I never said what was rational, just that rational + infinite information = correct. Your argument is that someone who believes the truth must like Ayn Rand. That's a silly argument. You are obviously not rational. Why do you hate Ayn Rand so much?
So, because beatings are worse than emotional abuse, emotional abuse is OK because it isn't "actual" child abuse?
And you've ignored the core fact that was relevant. The Police request you call 911. By the recommendation I received from multiple police at different times and in different situations, they obviously prefer you don't go by the station. The police don't want walk-ins. So why are you so insistent that I should do it? It's not illegal in TX to call 911 to report a petty theft that is not in progress (and is, as I mentioned, recommended). So why do you have an issue with me following the law and the recommendations of police?
If you could elaborate more on how they made you feel like a criminal, I may have more information to draw a conclusion from.
You ignore the bits that don't agree with your incorrect pre-conceptions, and take anything I say that's borderline out of context to use against me. I've been there. I know reality. If you don't believe reality. Drive or fly to Dallas and check it out for yourself. Convincing some argumentative person on the Internet is impossible, so I don't try that hard. I give the answer. You can choose to ignore it or argue about it, but you can't change it.
When the only difference between a "guest" and a criminal is whether you have to ask for permission to go to the toilet, they are sufficiently similar for my purposes. If you don't understand what I'm saying, go file a police report in Dallas. Let me know which substations you tried at.
So people have feelings, and they are real and can be hurt? You've come so far in the past few days.
Yes, I'm a rabid leftie to the right, and a rabid conservative to the liberals. If everyone thinks I'm wrong, I must be doing something right, especially seeing what "they" do, when given the chance.
So your stance is emotional abuse isn't a bad thing.
Oh, and "hate laws" aren't about hurting feelings, but trying to intimidate millions when you skin and torture some undesired minority as an example for what happens when "your kind" dates white women. Since you hate distinguishing punishment based on motive, you must not recognize the varied levels of homicide, based on motive and intentions (murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc.).
A rational person wouldn't make a mistake if they have all the information, unless they aren't being rational at the moment of the decision. So, if they are not rational, then that invalidates my requirement. If they are rational, but have insufficient information for the correct decision to be reached, then what's the problem if some group is deliberately holding back information? If it's the parents deliberately harming the child by restricting information that would enable rational choices, then that's Child Abuse. A parent deliberately causing harm is abuse.