With all the resources available at M$, Windows has been rather stagnant since 98. Look at what Macintosh has done over the same period of time. XP may be more stable than 98, but that's to be expected.
It's not just more stable. It's a better kernel model (you had to reboot just to change an IP in 98), it's more powerful (ever seen my taskbar at work? I often get up to 15 apps going -- fat chance on 98), etc, etc, etc.
I really dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy but I think you are being too harsh on them. Innovation has been non-existent? Define innovation? It's light years ahead of the 95/98 product line -- which is what you compared it to -- not MacOS.
I use Linux because I trust OSS more then something that phones home and has a EULA as long as War and Peace. It doesn't mean that Microsoft's products all "suck" or "have been stagnant since 98".
Oey vey! I'm defending MS. This is a weird morning.
The biggest problem that M$ has is their size. Sure they have tons of cash and an army of coders, but I bet the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. There must be so much red tape there as to basically paralyze them. Just look at the lack of innovation coming out of M$. Windows has been stagnant since Windows 98 and Office hasn't improved much since Office 97. M$ is being crushed under their own weight.
As much as I agree with you about Office and Microsoft in general I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that can say with a straight face that Windows 98 remotely compares to the 2000/XP line. Anybody remember 95/98? I remember that I could never keep it running more then a day or two. I remember that having to kill mIRC would often take Windows down with it (WTF???). I remember running out of "system resources" long before I ran out of RAM (what good is RAM if there are artificial limits on "resources"?).
If you want to blame Microsoft then blame them for XP not adding anything to Windows 2000 other then eye candy and phone-the-mothership code. Blame them for rolling out ME for no other reason then to exploit more revenue out of the 95/98 kernel. But don't say something stupid like Windows has been stagnant since 98.
Do you really think if Microsoft COULD do it, they wouldn't.
Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean that they WILL. Anybody care to remember what it was way back in the day with Microsoft software? Anybody remember how they ignored holes that were exploited far worse then this one until the public outrage overwhelmed their PR spin?
They don't look on security as anything other then a marketing ploy.
To which my response would be: "Hm. That's more than twice what my bank charges for a Stop Payment."
Hehe, that's great. It's amazing how few people actually take advantage of that option when they are faced with being screwed over.
I was being held hostage by a car repair shop once. He had broken an unrelated part (a $300 unrelated part!) in the process of installing my new fuel pump. He insisted that I should have to pay the full cost (parts and labor) of fixing this part. I refused. He said that if I didn't then he wouldn't fix it. We argued about it. I tried to meet him half way (offered to pay for the part but not the labor) -- that wasn't good enough.
Eventually I just told him to fix it and I'd pay him whatever he wants. When it came time to settle the bill I paid him for cash for the part of the bill that I agreed with and wrote him a check for the rest. After driving off his lot I stopped at my credit union and put a stop order on the check.
He has done everything he can to harass me. He used to call me four times a day threatening to sue. He cornered me at the drug store once. I told him to go ahead and sue me if that was his intent -- so far he hasn't bothered. Given the set of events and existing state law that says I didn't have to pay for anything (my offer to pay for the part was just me trying to come to a deal in good faith) I highly doubt he could win any lawsuit.
Don't mess with me. I'm one of those few people left that actually cares about customer service
a) In Europe, power is generated relatively cleanly (nuclear etc.). Not so in USA
Yeah, in France. I seem to recall that quite a few other nations (Italy, Germany) have the same problems with deploying nuclear power (NIMBY and unjustified fear of anything with the word "nuclear" in it) that we do in the US. In fact, didn't Italy recently decommission the last of their nuke plants?
Cars in Europe are relatively environmentally-friendly, when compared to cars in USA
I've seen SUVs on the road in Europe. They might be a richer pursuit over there and not a "soccer mom" status symbol but they are still there.
c) Industry in Europe (steel among others) had already spent lots of money modernizing their plants, making the more environmentally friendly.
The problem would seem to be more related to energy generation (power plants) then the factories where that energy is used. In the United States billions of dollars have been spent upgrading existing plants to reduce harmful emissions. Nobody ever gives us any credit for this though. About the only thing that comes out of a modern power plant is CO2 -- and the last time I checked nobody has solved that problem yet -- though many are working on it.
d) People actually use mass-transportation in Europe, not so in USA.
I'm tired of hearing about that. Europe's urban character makes this feasible. The United States is a lot more suburban and rural. Care to explain to me how I should take mass transit to my job? I live in a town with a population of 3,500 and work in a town with a population of 900. I carpool as often as I can -- that's doing my part.
It almost certainly would either attempt to phone home when it detected that you were tampering with it, or (smarter) would constantly send a heartbeat signal to the dealer that would be interrupted by your tampering, which would then tell them that you've turned it off.
How's it going to phone home? Celluar? What happens if I drive into a tunnel or run my battery down (left the lights on)? Do they stop receiving heartbeats and assume that I have disabled the device? What happens if I live in the middle of bumfuck with no celluar service? Is this device going to have two-way sat communication?
Well yes, true. But what I'm talking about in principle is removing the kill-switch-box after finding out it disabled your ignition for non-payment. At this point, it could be argued in court with certainty you commited grand theft auto.
I don't think so. Grand theft auto is a criminal matter. Until they actually decide to repo the car it is still mine and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. What if that device broke and wouldn't let me start my car? What if I was only 30 days late and it wouldn't let me start my car? In most states they wouldn't be able to repo it until you were at least 90 days late.
Now, if you later filed bankruptcy and tried to get the debt related to that vehicle discharged (if they repo it and sell it for less then you owe then you are still on the hook for the rest) you might find that your actions could be used against you. But it still doesn't make it a criminal matter.
fucking moron. yeah we all really believe that you are willing to go to jail or worse for killing a repo man. Most likely if you did anything at all it would be more big talk.. "I'm gonna sue you!", "Dont you know who I am!", "Get the fuck off my property".. etc etc.. but in the end you would still watch your vehicle get towed away.
No, but if I start the car up and drive it away there isn't a goddamn thing he can do about it. He can't pull me over. The repo man may be professionally intimidating but he isn't a peace officer. He has no arrest power over me. He can't force me to do anything.
Of course more likely then not they will repossess your car at 2AM and you won't realize it happened until the next day. I'm just pointing out the fact that a repossession is a civil matter -- they don't have any sort of special authority. In fact, if you had the vehicle in a locked garage then they are effectively fucked without getting a court order. They can't break into your home to repossess something just because they have a lien against it.
y definition, someone with bad credit has bad credit *because* they tried to screw a creditor by not making payments on time
That's a bit of a leap. I know a fair share of people (my own sad life story included) that have bad credit because of events beyond their control. Try medical bills for starters. Try unemployment. Try the death of a working spouse who didn't have enough life insurance. Take any number of scenarios that could result in falling behind on bills without purposefully trying to "screw" the creditors.
The result is that they pay huge interest rates on everything. Seems fair to me.
It seems fair on the surface until you think about the nasty circle that it creates. You can't deny that the industry is setup to screw people in many cases. Why the hell does a secured credit card (often used to rebuild credit) need a 24.99% APR? By definition a secured card represents absolutely no risk to the issuer. They charge those rates because nobody is stopping them.
the next thing to realize is that most of the people at the bottom of the pay scale remain very poor because they insist on buying things (on credit) that they cant afford
I would agree with that statement if you had phrased it as "some of the people" instead of "most of the people".
I personally know more than a few people who "bought" a $25,000 car on credit at 20% interest at the same time they were being evicted for not paying their rent. Why didn't they buy a $15,000 car, or even buy a used car?
And that means everybody is like that? Personally when I was having hard times I always made a point to pay my car insurance first (if I can't get to work and make money then everybody is screwed), my landlord second, my food and utilities third and everybody after that can take a number. Screwing your landlord while you drive around in a $25,000 car is deplorable. I just take exception to your statements that "most" people who are poor or who have bad credit are acting like this. Did you know that about 70% of bankruptcies are triggered by medical bills?
I personally make only 20k / year, in a city where 30k / year is considered to be the line between middle class and poor, but in two years I have saved enough money to buy two rental houses, and the home I live in. I bought a used suzuki (on which I splurged) for $9,000. I don't own a TV (I use a TV card I bought for $5 from a local computer salvage store). I don't have a "kick ass stereo" I don't have a sweet living room set. I don't have a car stereo, and I wear clothing bought off the rack at a sears end of season clearance sale. Most importantly, I didn't marry a woman who is so stupid that she believes that children are a welfare funded meal ticket. If you want to get ahead in life stop trying to look like you're already ahead and put your mind towards the task of getting there.
Yeah, I'm about in the same boat. I make about 26k / year in an area with an avg of 40k. I drive a 1991 car that I bought at a charity auction for $205. I live in a one bedroom apartment. I'm saving every dime of my excess income to build a safety cushion and I'm considering a second job. So what's your point? I still take issue with your statements about "most" people.
Now as for these devices, I think they are a great idea. I want these for my rental units. The door would refuse to open from the outside unless they deposit $20 / day into the lock box... It would save me about 2 evictions every year, and I'll bet I would get paid more reliably.
And I would refuse to rent from you if you had those devices. If you felt the need to deploy such devices on your apartments then that alone is going to scare me away (who the hell else are you renting to? do I really want to live next to them?). And like RIAA I also have a serious problem with any business that treats me like a criminal before I've done anything wrong.
ps, almost all people with bad credit have it due to their own irresponsibility.
Yeah and fuck you. It's so fucking easy for somebody who hasn't fallen on hard times to say that.
I recently filed Chapter 7. Why you ask? Because I got laid off in the middle of the dot com bust and had medical problems (after I ran out of money to pay the COBRA premiums of course). I tacked up about $25,000 worth of medical bills. I decided to pay as much of them as possible on my (mostly unused) credit cards. I reasoned that it was better to screw Capital One then the local non-profit hospital. Of course this decision worked out worse for me, because the local hospital probably wouldn't have charged me 29.99% default rate, nor would they have gone to my credit report right away -- but I still don't regret this decision.
Talk to a bankruptcy lawyer before you start running your mouth. Did you know that about 70% of the people who file bankruptcy did so because of medical bills? Did you know that most of your sleazy credit companies care less about your credit score and payment history then they do about your debt to income ratio. They will aim to get you to about a 0.75 debt to income ratio. When you owe 75% of your annual salary in debt that is the threshold at which you will be paying the interest for the rest of your life without touching the principal.
It's the 21st century version of indentured servitude. And they (credit companies) deserve every fucking default they get. I will never again in my life borrow money for any purpose other then home ownership. And I will make every effort to make sure that loan comes from my credit union.
On cars, in Texas, the dealer is to sell the car for NO MORE THAN what is owed on it.
That seems a little unfair if I own a car worth $10,000 and default on my loan when about $2,000 remains. They get to sell that car for $2,000 and I get screwed out of $8,000 of equity? WTF is that?
Doesn't matter what legal language you put on it. Doesn't matter if you legally, technically own it according to the letter of a law. If something can be taken away from you for non-payment, you de-facto do not yet own it.
Then by de-facto you don't own anything. You don't even own the money in your wallet or bank account. If you owe me money and refuse to pay it then I can get a judgment against you. I can take that judgment and use it to get a lien on your bank account. I can drain enough funds to meet the amount you owe me. If you had money on your person then I could attempt to get a court order to force you to turn that cash over to me.
The only thing a security interest/lien towards a car or a house does is make that process easier if you default on your loan. If there isn't an existing lien then I am going to run into more resistance trying to garnish your wages/seize your property.
It still doesn't change the fact that by the letter of the law that property is yours -- lien or no lien.
Even worse, it could be seen as grand theft auto seeing that you "stole" a car that legally no longer belongs to you untill payment is made...if you ever pay it.
Actually, it belongs to you until such time as they can actually repo it. You can't be charged with grand theft auto for hiding your car from the repo man. The best they could hope for is to get a judgement against you in a civil action.
Those liens are callable if you default, and since most car/land loans are secured with the property in question, it's the bank/dealer's right to seize their property if you are in default.
You are entirely correct -- but for the use of the word "their". It should have been "your".
It's also a little known fact that in virtually every state if they seize the property they have to make every attempt to sell it for maximum market value. Anything gained above the amount of money they are owed has to be turned over to the owner of the property. Of course with a car loan you are screwed because cars never gain value -- but if they seize your house and the market will pay twice what is owed on it then they have to send that excess cash to you.
Of course nobody knows this and being the nice industry that it is most people get screwed over anyway by the credit sharks.
You know, it's very easy to slam someone for not being able to pay their bills. But why don't you take a look at the credit industry sometime before sticking up for them. A lot of them are bloodsucking motherfuckers that pray on people.
This device secures their interest in the property, well within their rights.
Yes, their interest in your property. Not "the property". I suppose I would be perfectly within "my rights" to remove such device from my car. The worst thing I'd be doing is breaking a civil contract -- not any laws. Unless it phones home then I don't really see what they can do about it.
Re:What the hell-"/." lawyers.
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's a little hard to find but I did find this on the NYSDMV page.
To quote: "Before you accept the title certificate from the seller, check the front of the title for the names and addresses of lien holders. A lien indicates the current owner owes money on a loan for the vehicle. If a lien is listed on the title, ask the seller to give you the proof the lien has been paid - in most cases, it will be an official lien release from the lender. If proof is not provided, the lien holder could repossess the vehicle from you."
You'll note they use the term "current owner". A lien simply records the fact that somebody might have a security interest in the property. It does not mean they own it. It gives them a legal means of seizing that property if any obligations are not met -- but until they seize it they do not own it.
I'm kind of surprised by the number of people sticking up for these assholes. Why is this any different from RIAA treating their customers like criminals? I sign a contract with my bank to borrow money with a promise to pay that money back. Why the hell should they get to assume that I won't and require me to modify my property?
Will mortgage companies require that you use a keypad locking system on your house that keeps you from leaving/entering if you fall behind on your payments? It also seems rather stupid to disable the car if they miss one payment. Yeah, I'm sure somebody that falls on hard times and misses a payment will find it real easy to make money to catch up on payments when they don't have transportation.
Even still, if you don't own a car outright, even from a reputable dealer, that title has a lien set against it that is callable if you ever violate your payment contract, even if the loan is with a company not related to the dealer (ie your bank/credit union).
But that lien doesn't mean that they own the property. It only means that they have an interest in the property and it may serve to restrict your rights regarding the transfer of that property. It doesn't restrict any other rights that you may have.
If it did, then buying a house would be just like renting it until you paid off your mortgage. Why should the bank let you pound holes the wall to hang pictures and paint the walls any color but white? Most landlords won't in a renting scenario. The answer is that the bank doesn't own your house -- they only have a security interest in it.
On behalf of those of us who have to pay inflated insurance rates to cover your accidents, eat cock and die.
I'm sure your just trolling and you are dead wrong about the ownership issue, but I'd like to hear you explain to me exactly why the fact that I don't carry collision on my car would inflate your insurance rates.
Collision covers damage to my car if I'm in an accident that was my fault. If I'm in an accident with you and it's my fault then my insurance company is going to pay for the damages to your car regardless of the status of my collision coverage. That payment will come out of my property damage limit. It has nothing to do with collision.
Likewise, if you hit me and you are at fault, then I'm going to get money to pay for the damage to my car regardless of whether or not I have collision.
I don't even know why I'm bothering. I'm sure your a troll.
Re:What the hell-"/." lawyers.
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You can point till the cows come home. Legally your still wrong.
Umm, bullshit. Do you not know what a Lien is? To quote: "In U.S. law, lien is the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation."
A lien tells somebody who might be looking to buy your property that somebody else has a security interest in it. This does not mean that you don't own the property. It will probably prevent you from transferring ownership of that property until that lien is satisfied but it does not change the fact that you own that property yourself.
In fact, even if the property is transferred the lien will usually survive and the new owner has to deal with it. A good example would be a house that was seized by the government for taxes that still had a mortgage against it. If you buy that house at government auction you are going to have to come to terms with the bank that holds the lien against it.
You don't own it, the lot owns it, you're making payments and they are allowing you to drive the car. Once you pay off the loan its yours to do with as you wish, but if you fall behind on the payments, its their right to seize their property.
I'm sorry, but in virtually every sane auto contract that is not so.
If I buy a car from a dealership then I am going to get a bill of sale. I will eventually get a title from DMV that shows that I own that car. The title will also reflect the security interest of whomever gave the loan for that car (assuming I didn't buy it outright) -- but the fact remains that I own the car.
A security interest is not the same as them owning the car. The lot got paid for the car by whomever I got the loan from. It's the same theory behind a secured credit card (another typical ploy used to screw people -- WTF does a secured credit card with no risk to the issuer require massive fees and 20% interest??). The bank doesn't own the funds you deposited into the account to get the card -- they only have a security interest in them.
Now I can't speak for the contracts that you sign if you buy a car from a carshark "buy here, pay here" type guy. I'm not stupid or desperate enough to do business with one.
I'll make you a promise... I'll do my best to never say to someone that they're pitiful for not believing in God, and you try your best never to tell something that they're a loon for believing in God. At least then I can sleep better at night knowing that there's at least one person out there who's not actively seeking to be a dick.
I could make that promise. I have never called anybody crazy for professing a belief in a higher power. I have said that I don't understand it -- but that is an honest question and not a criticism. In my own way I am somewhat spiritual -- it's just that my life experiences have turned me against organized religion of any shape or form. I would hope that if I one day marry and have children that I would meet somebody who is somewhat religious so that my children would have that in their lives.
Ahhh... I get you know here, too... Yep, you're right on.
Well, at least people with bad credit histories will be given the chance of buying to buy a car. It won't matter for those who have the money, but it just might be good for those who are poor.
Actually, it's still extortion plain and simple. There is a local "buy here, pay here" car dealer that has been using these devices for quite awhile. You would think that in exchange for getting put a device on a car that you own that they would give the people with shitty credit history a break on the interest payments. After all, isn't the theory behind charging people with lousy credit higher interest that you need to do so in order to recoup losses? Not as much room for losses with this system.
Of course it doesn't work out that way in practice. They still charge anywhere from 15%-25% on a car loan. It's legalized loan sharking that takes advantage of the most desperate among us.
I'd also point out that even if you need a loan to buy a car you still own that car outright. The only thing that the bank/financing company has in the car is a security interest. This is not the same as them owning a percentage of the car. So why the hell should they be allowed to require this?
I would encourage everybody out there to avoid the whole problem by not buying a car that you need a loan on. I have never spent more then $2,000 on a car. Sure, I spend some money in repairs -- but the year end figure doesn't come close to most car loans (which still need repairs). And driving cheap ghetto cars allows me to avoid having to pay for expensive collision coverage.
Failing that, if you must have a nice car and can't afford to buy it outright, then get the loan for your car from your credit union or local community bank. Why the hell should we be doing the auto financing companies any favors?
By saying that you're sick of people "pushing their beliefs on others" just by being an example of their religion, you're saying that you don't think people should be religious at all. This is where my confusion started stemming from. I don't understand what you're trying to say by saying that you want people to stop "pushing" their religion on you even without proselytizing.
No, I don't seriously suggest that we should (or could) stop people from praying for wayward souls like mine. I can even understand your point about proselytizing being a part of various religions. I guess that my stance is that you have the right to do anything in this World (religious or not) that doesn't interfere with another person or cause that person harm. Praying for someone (even if they find it offensive) doesn't cause them any harm. Attempting to convert them to your faith does (imho, yours may differ). Denying them a right that they should have otherwise should also be frowned upon. This could be anything from the oppression of women in Muslim countries to the attempted oppression of abortion rights and stem cell research in Western countries.
I guess my comments about being offended by people praying for me stems from the fact that a lot of people just throw it into your face when you refuse to agree with them. I had the misfortune of spending a large part of my youth in the deep American south (read: bible belt). As somebody from the more liberal and secular northeast it was quite a culture shock for me. When I told people that I didn't share their values they would often reply with "I feel pity for you... I'll pray for you" I regard that as offensive and insulting.
But to answer your question, no I don't get offended at "god bless you" in response to a sneeze. I suppose if I was lying in a hospital bed waiting to die that I wouldn't begrudge my more religious friends for praying for me either. There's a difference between that type of prayer and the "I'll pray for your soul" just because somebody doesn't share your values and you think they are going to hell.
If you intend specifically to be speaking towards me about being intolerant... Hm... I honestly don't see what you're refering to, but I'm willing to listen to them.
No, it wasn't directed at you. I was referring to the fact that a lot of non-religious things that are intolerant bear a striking similarity to certain fundamentalist interpretations of religion that demand unquestioning devotion. The best example (at the risk of invoking Goodwin's law) that I could think of would be the Nazi regime in Germany. They demanded unquestioning loyalty and support and were quite intolerant. A lot of religions demand the same kind of unquestioning devotion.
You seem like a fairly reasonable and tolerant person. I hope I've made some more sense and points with this post. I suppose we need a Babelfish that does English->English translation;)
I would argue that most truly religious people would die for their god. I know I would - and I'd like to think I'm sane. From a religious standpoint, nothing is more important than God. That's not to say that family isn't important - just that a relationship with an omnipotent being is more so.
If he is so friggen omnipotent then why do you need to die for him?
I'm sorry that my religion makes you feel uncomfortable. Did you ever think that maybe your anti-religious attitude makes others feel uncomfortable the same way you're made uncomfortable by their attitudes?
You don't know enough about me to assume that I have an anti-religious attitude. If you were inclined to dig back deeply enough into my comment history you'd find me arguing against the kind of insanity that files lawsuits over nativity scenes in public spaces.
I'm sick of hearing people talking about how religion is so intolerant, and unsympathetic, then watching them turn around and be the same back towards those that do express religion, no matter if they are acting reasonably or not.
Where did I express intolerance? Did I say that religion was stupid? I recall saying that I was sick of people who use religion to pretend that they are morally superior to everybody else. I've also said that I'm sick of people using religion to push their beliefs on other people. That doesn't even need to be proselytizing. I'd wager that the untold numbers of people suffering from degenerative diseases are getting sick and tired of hearing moral arguments about stem cell research. I find it absolutely incomprehensible how "potential life" can outweigh "actual life". But that's just me.
I'm not intolerant towards religion. I'm intolerant towards intolerant followers of religion.
Religion has no monopoly on hypocracy, or intolerance.
No, but most of your non-religious things that are intolerant (certain political thoughts come to mind) bear a striking similarity to religion in the unquestioning devotion they demand of their followers. Just food for thought.
Slashdot Mirror
With all the resources available at M$, Windows has been rather stagnant since 98. Look at what Macintosh has done over the same period of time. XP may be more stable than 98, but that's to be expected.
It's not just more stable. It's a better kernel model (you had to reboot just to change an IP in 98), it's more powerful (ever seen my taskbar at work? I often get up to 15 apps going -- fat chance on 98), etc, etc, etc.
I really dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy but I think you are being too harsh on them. Innovation has been non-existent? Define innovation? It's light years ahead of the 95/98 product line -- which is what you compared it to -- not MacOS.
I use Linux because I trust OSS more then something that phones home and has a EULA as long as War and Peace. It doesn't mean that Microsoft's products all "suck" or "have been stagnant since 98".
Oey vey! I'm defending MS. This is a weird morning.
The biggest problem that M$ has is their size. Sure they have tons of cash and an army of coders, but I bet the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. There must be so much red tape there as to basically paralyze them. Just look at the lack of innovation coming out of M$. Windows has been stagnant since Windows 98 and Office hasn't improved much since Office 97. M$ is being crushed under their own weight.
As much as I agree with you about Office and Microsoft in general I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that can say with a straight face that Windows 98 remotely compares to the 2000/XP line. Anybody remember 95/98? I remember that I could never keep it running more then a day or two. I remember that having to kill mIRC would often take Windows down with it (WTF???). I remember running out of "system resources" long before I ran out of RAM (what good is RAM if there are artificial limits on "resources"?).
If you want to blame Microsoft then blame them for XP not adding anything to Windows 2000 other then eye candy and phone-the-mothership code. Blame them for rolling out ME for no other reason then to exploit more revenue out of the 95/98 kernel. But don't say something stupid like Windows has been stagnant since 98.
Do you really think if Microsoft COULD do it, they wouldn't.
Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean that they WILL. Anybody care to remember what it was way back in the day with Microsoft software? Anybody remember how they ignored holes that were exploited far worse then this one until the public outrage overwhelmed their PR spin?
They don't look on security as anything other then a marketing ploy.
To which my response would be: "Hm. That's more than twice what my bank charges for a Stop Payment."
Hehe, that's great. It's amazing how few people actually take advantage of that option when they are faced with being screwed over.
I was being held hostage by a car repair shop once. He had broken an unrelated part (a $300 unrelated part!) in the process of installing my new fuel pump. He insisted that I should have to pay the full cost (parts and labor) of fixing this part. I refused. He said that if I didn't then he wouldn't fix it. We argued about it. I tried to meet him half way (offered to pay for the part but not the labor) -- that wasn't good enough.
Eventually I just told him to fix it and I'd pay him whatever he wants. When it came time to settle the bill I paid him for cash for the part of the bill that I agreed with and wrote him a check for the rest. After driving off his lot I stopped at my credit union and put a stop order on the check.
He has done everything he can to harass me. He used to call me four times a day threatening to sue. He cornered me at the drug store once. I told him to go ahead and sue me if that was his intent -- so far he hasn't bothered. Given the set of events and existing state law that says I didn't have to pay for anything (my offer to pay for the part was just me trying to come to a deal in good faith) I highly doubt he could win any lawsuit.
Don't mess with me. I'm one of those few people left that actually cares about customer service
a) In Europe, power is generated relatively cleanly (nuclear etc.). Not so in USA
Yeah, in France. I seem to recall that quite a few other nations (Italy, Germany) have the same problems with deploying nuclear power (NIMBY and unjustified fear of anything with the word "nuclear" in it) that we do in the US. In fact, didn't Italy recently decommission the last of their nuke plants?
Cars in Europe are relatively environmentally-friendly, when compared to cars in USA
I've seen SUVs on the road in Europe. They might be a richer pursuit over there and not a "soccer mom" status symbol but they are still there.
c) Industry in Europe (steel among others) had already spent lots of money modernizing their plants, making the more environmentally friendly.
The problem would seem to be more related to energy generation (power plants) then the factories where that energy is used. In the United States billions of dollars have been spent upgrading existing plants to reduce harmful emissions. Nobody ever gives us any credit for this though. About the only thing that comes out of a modern power plant is CO2 -- and the last time I checked nobody has solved that problem yet -- though many are working on it.
d) People actually use mass-transportation in Europe, not so in USA.
I'm tired of hearing about that. Europe's urban character makes this feasible. The United States is a lot more suburban and rural. Care to explain to me how I should take mass transit to my job? I live in a town with a population of 3,500 and work in a town with a population of 900. I carpool as often as I can -- that's doing my part.
It almost certainly would either attempt to phone home when it detected that you were tampering with it, or (smarter) would constantly send a heartbeat signal to the dealer that would be interrupted by your tampering, which would then tell them that you've turned it off.
How's it going to phone home? Celluar? What happens if I drive into a tunnel or run my battery down (left the lights on)? Do they stop receiving heartbeats and assume that I have disabled the device? What happens if I live in the middle of bumfuck with no celluar service? Is this device going to have two-way sat communication?
Well yes, true. But what I'm talking about in principle is removing the kill-switch-box after finding out it disabled your ignition for non-payment. At this point, it could be argued in court with certainty you commited grand theft auto.
I don't think so. Grand theft auto is a criminal matter. Until they actually decide to repo the car it is still mine and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. What if that device broke and wouldn't let me start my car? What if I was only 30 days late and it wouldn't let me start my car? In most states they wouldn't be able to repo it until you were at least 90 days late.
Now, if you later filed bankruptcy and tried to get the debt related to that vehicle discharged (if they repo it and sell it for less then you owe then you are still on the hook for the rest) you might find that your actions could be used against you. But it still doesn't make it a criminal matter.
fucking moron. yeah we all really believe that you are willing to go to jail or worse for killing a repo man. Most likely if you did anything at all it would be more big talk.. "I'm gonna sue you!", "Dont you know who I am!", "Get the fuck off my property".. etc etc.. but in the end you would still watch your vehicle get towed away.
No, but if I start the car up and drive it away there isn't a goddamn thing he can do about it. He can't pull me over. The repo man may be professionally intimidating but he isn't a peace officer. He has no arrest power over me. He can't force me to do anything.
Of course more likely then not they will repossess your car at 2AM and you won't realize it happened until the next day. I'm just pointing out the fact that a repossession is a civil matter -- they don't have any sort of special authority. In fact, if you had the vehicle in a locked garage then they are effectively fucked without getting a court order. They can't break into your home to repossess something just because they have a lien against it.
y definition, someone with bad credit has bad credit *because* they tried to screw a creditor by not making payments on time
That's a bit of a leap. I know a fair share of people (my own sad life story included) that have bad credit because of events beyond their control. Try medical bills for starters. Try unemployment. Try the death of a working spouse who didn't have enough life insurance. Take any number of scenarios that could result in falling behind on bills without purposefully trying to "screw" the creditors.
The result is that they pay huge interest rates on everything. Seems fair to me.
It seems fair on the surface until you think about the nasty circle that it creates. You can't deny that the industry is setup to screw people in many cases. Why the hell does a secured credit card (often used to rebuild credit) need a 24.99% APR? By definition a secured card represents absolutely no risk to the issuer. They charge those rates because nobody is stopping them.
the next thing to realize is that most of the people at the bottom of the pay scale remain very poor because they insist on buying things (on credit) that they cant afford
I would agree with that statement if you had phrased it as "some of the people" instead of "most of the people".
I personally know more than a few people who "bought" a $25,000 car on credit at 20% interest at the same time they were being evicted for not paying their rent. Why didn't they buy a $15,000 car, or even buy a used car?
And that means everybody is like that? Personally when I was having hard times I always made a point to pay my car insurance first (if I can't get to work and make money then everybody is screwed), my landlord second, my food and utilities third and everybody after that can take a number. Screwing your landlord while you drive around in a $25,000 car is deplorable. I just take exception to your statements that "most" people who are poor or who have bad credit are acting like this. Did you know that about 70% of bankruptcies are triggered by medical bills?
I personally make only 20k / year, in a city where 30k / year is considered to be the line between middle class and poor, but in two years I have saved enough money to buy two rental houses, and the home I live in. I bought a used suzuki (on which I splurged) for $9,000. I don't own a TV (I use a TV card I bought for $5 from a local computer salvage store). I don't have a "kick ass stereo" I don't have a sweet living room set. I don't have a car stereo, and I wear clothing bought off the rack at a sears end of season clearance sale. Most importantly, I didn't marry a woman who is so stupid that she believes that children are a welfare funded meal ticket. If you want to get ahead in life stop trying to look like you're already ahead and put your mind towards the task of getting there.
Yeah, I'm about in the same boat. I make about 26k / year in an area with an avg of 40k. I drive a 1991 car that I bought at a charity auction for $205. I live in a one bedroom apartment. I'm saving every dime of my excess income to build a safety cushion and I'm considering a second job. So what's your point? I still take issue with your statements about "most" people.
Now as for these devices, I think they are a great idea. I want these for my rental units. The door would refuse to open from the outside unless they deposit $20 / day into the lock box... It would save me about 2 evictions every year, and I'll bet I would get paid more reliably.
And I would refuse to rent from you if you had those devices. If you felt the need to deploy such devices on your apartments then that alone is going to scare me away (who the hell else are you renting to? do I really want to live next to them?). And like RIAA I also have a serious problem with any business that treats me like a criminal before I've done anything wrong.
But that's just me.
ps, almost all people with bad credit have it due to their own irresponsibility.
Yeah and fuck you. It's so fucking easy for somebody who hasn't fallen on hard times to say that.
I recently filed Chapter 7. Why you ask? Because I got laid off in the middle of the dot com bust and had medical problems (after I ran out of money to pay the COBRA premiums of course). I tacked up about $25,000 worth of medical bills. I decided to pay as much of them as possible on my (mostly unused) credit cards. I reasoned that it was better to screw Capital One then the local non-profit hospital. Of course this decision worked out worse for me, because the local hospital probably wouldn't have charged me 29.99% default rate, nor would they have gone to my credit report right away -- but I still don't regret this decision.
Talk to a bankruptcy lawyer before you start running your mouth. Did you know that about 70% of the people who file bankruptcy did so because of medical bills? Did you know that most of your sleazy credit companies care less about your credit score and payment history then they do about your debt to income ratio. They will aim to get you to about a 0.75 debt to income ratio. When you owe 75% of your annual salary in debt that is the threshold at which you will be paying the interest for the rest of your life without touching the principal.
It's the 21st century version of indentured servitude. And they (credit companies) deserve every fucking default they get. I will never again in my life borrow money for any purpose other then home ownership. And I will make every effort to make sure that loan comes from my credit union.
On cars, in Texas, the dealer is to sell the car for NO MORE THAN what is owed on it.
That seems a little unfair if I own a car worth $10,000 and default on my loan when about $2,000 remains. They get to sell that car for $2,000 and I get screwed out of $8,000 of equity? WTF is that?
Doesn't matter what legal language you put on it. Doesn't matter if you legally, technically own it according to the letter of a law. If something can be taken away from you for non-payment, you de-facto do not yet own it.
Then by de-facto you don't own anything. You don't even own the money in your wallet or bank account. If you owe me money and refuse to pay it then I can get a judgment against you. I can take that judgment and use it to get a lien on your bank account. I can drain enough funds to meet the amount you owe me. If you had money on your person then I could attempt to get a court order to force you to turn that cash over to me.
The only thing a security interest/lien towards a car or a house does is make that process easier if you default on your loan. If there isn't an existing lien then I am going to run into more resistance trying to garnish your wages/seize your property.
It still doesn't change the fact that by the letter of the law that property is yours -- lien or no lien.
Even worse, it could be seen as grand theft auto seeing that you "stole" a car that legally no longer belongs to you untill payment is made...if you ever pay it.
Actually, it belongs to you until such time as they can actually repo it. You can't be charged with grand theft auto for hiding your car from the repo man. The best they could hope for is to get a judgement against you in a civil action.
Those liens are callable if you default, and since most car/land loans are secured with the property in question, it's the bank/dealer's right to seize their property if you are in default.
You are entirely correct -- but for the use of the word "their". It should have been "your".
It's also a little known fact that in virtually every state if they seize the property they have to make every attempt to sell it for maximum market value. Anything gained above the amount of money they are owed has to be turned over to the owner of the property. Of course with a car loan you are screwed because cars never gain value -- but if they seize your house and the market will pay twice what is owed on it then they have to send that excess cash to you.
Of course nobody knows this and being the nice industry that it is most people get screwed over anyway by the credit sharks.
You know, it's very easy to slam someone for not being able to pay their bills. But why don't you take a look at the credit industry sometime before sticking up for them. A lot of them are bloodsucking motherfuckers that pray on people.
This device secures their interest in the property, well within their rights.
Yes, their interest in your property. Not "the property". I suppose I would be perfectly within "my rights" to remove such device from my car. The worst thing I'd be doing is breaking a civil contract -- not any laws. Unless it phones home then I don't really see what they can do about it.
It's a little hard to find but I did find this on the NYSDMV page.
To quote: "Before you accept the title certificate from the seller, check the front of the title for the names and addresses of lien holders. A lien indicates the current owner owes money on a loan for the vehicle. If a lien is listed on the title, ask the seller to give you the proof the lien has been paid - in most cases, it will be an official lien release from the lender. If proof is not provided, the lien holder could repossess the vehicle from you."
You'll note they use the term "current owner". A lien simply records the fact that somebody might have a security interest in the property. It does not mean they own it. It gives them a legal means of seizing that property if any obligations are not met -- but until they seize it they do not own it.
I'm kind of surprised by the number of people sticking up for these assholes. Why is this any different from RIAA treating their customers like criminals? I sign a contract with my bank to borrow money with a promise to pay that money back. Why the hell should they get to assume that I won't and require me to modify my property?
Will mortgage companies require that you use a keypad locking system on your house that keeps you from leaving/entering if you fall behind on your payments? It also seems rather stupid to disable the car if they miss one payment. Yeah, I'm sure somebody that falls on hard times and misses a payment will find it real easy to make money to catch up on payments when they don't have transportation.
Even still, if you don't own a car outright, even from a reputable dealer, that title has a lien set against it that is callable if you ever violate your payment contract, even if the loan is with a company not related to the dealer (ie your bank/credit union).
But that lien doesn't mean that they own the property. It only means that they have an interest in the property and it may serve to restrict your rights regarding the transfer of that property. It doesn't restrict any other rights that you may have.
If it did, then buying a house would be just like renting it until you paid off your mortgage. Why should the bank let you pound holes the wall to hang pictures and paint the walls any color but white? Most landlords won't in a renting scenario. The answer is that the bank doesn't own your house -- they only have a security interest in it.
On behalf of those of us who have to pay inflated insurance rates to cover your accidents, eat cock and die.
I'm sure your just trolling and you are dead wrong about the ownership issue, but I'd like to hear you explain to me exactly why the fact that I don't carry collision on my car would inflate your insurance rates.
Collision covers damage to my car if I'm in an accident that was my fault. If I'm in an accident with you and it's my fault then my insurance company is going to pay for the damages to your car regardless of the status of my collision coverage. That payment will come out of my property damage limit. It has nothing to do with collision.
Likewise, if you hit me and you are at fault, then I'm going to get money to pay for the damage to my car regardless of whether or not I have collision.
I don't even know why I'm bothering. I'm sure your a troll.
You can point till the cows come home. Legally your still wrong.
Umm, bullshit. Do you not know what a Lien is? To quote: "In U.S. law, lien is the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation."
A lien tells somebody who might be looking to buy your property that somebody else has a security interest in it. This does not mean that you don't own the property. It will probably prevent you from transferring ownership of that property until that lien is satisfied but it does not change the fact that you own that property yourself.
In fact, even if the property is transferred the lien will usually survive and the new owner has to deal with it. A good example would be a house that was seized by the government for taxes that still had a mortgage against it. If you buy that house at government auction you are going to have to come to terms with the bank that holds the lien against it.
You don't own it, the lot owns it, you're making payments and they are allowing you to drive the car. Once you pay off the loan its yours to do with as you wish, but if you fall behind on the payments, its their right to seize their property.
I'm sorry, but in virtually every sane auto contract that is not so.
If I buy a car from a dealership then I am going to get a bill of sale. I will eventually get a title from DMV that shows that I own that car. The title will also reflect the security interest of whomever gave the loan for that car (assuming I didn't buy it outright) -- but the fact remains that I own the car.
A security interest is not the same as them owning the car. The lot got paid for the car by whomever I got the loan from. It's the same theory behind a secured credit card (another typical ploy used to screw people -- WTF does a secured credit card with no risk to the issuer require massive fees and 20% interest??). The bank doesn't own the funds you deposited into the account to get the card -- they only have a security interest in them.
Now I can't speak for the contracts that you sign if you buy a car from a carshark "buy here, pay here" type guy. I'm not stupid or desperate enough to do business with one.
I'll make you a promise... I'll do my best to never say to someone that they're pitiful for not believing in God, and you try your best never to tell something that they're a loon for believing in God. At least then I can sleep better at night knowing that there's at least one person out there who's not actively seeking to be a dick.
I could make that promise. I have never called anybody crazy for professing a belief in a higher power. I have said that I don't understand it -- but that is an honest question and not a criticism. In my own way I am somewhat spiritual -- it's just that my life experiences have turned me against organized religion of any shape or form. I would hope that if I one day marry and have children that I would meet somebody who is somewhat religious so that my children would have that in their lives.
Ahhh... I get you know here, too... Yep, you're right on.
Good talking with you :)
Well, at least people with bad credit histories will be given the chance of buying to buy a car. It won't matter for those who have the money, but it just might be good for those who are poor.
Actually, it's still extortion plain and simple. There is a local "buy here, pay here" car dealer that has been using these devices for quite awhile. You would think that in exchange for getting put a device on a car that you own that they would give the people with shitty credit history a break on the interest payments. After all, isn't the theory behind charging people with lousy credit higher interest that you need to do so in order to recoup losses? Not as much room for losses with this system.
Of course it doesn't work out that way in practice. They still charge anywhere from 15%-25% on a car loan. It's legalized loan sharking that takes advantage of the most desperate among us.
I'd also point out that even if you need a loan to buy a car you still own that car outright. The only thing that the bank/financing company has in the car is a security interest. This is not the same as them owning a percentage of the car. So why the hell should they be allowed to require this?
I would encourage everybody out there to avoid the whole problem by not buying a car that you need a loan on. I have never spent more then $2,000 on a car. Sure, I spend some money in repairs -- but the year end figure doesn't come close to most car loans (which still need repairs). And driving cheap ghetto cars allows me to avoid having to pay for expensive collision coverage.
Failing that, if you must have a nice car and can't afford to buy it outright, then get the loan for your car from your credit union or local community bank. Why the hell should we be doing the auto financing companies any favors?
By saying that you're sick of people "pushing their beliefs on others" just by being an example of their religion, you're saying that you don't think people should be religious at all. This is where my confusion started stemming from. I don't understand what you're trying to say by saying that you want people to stop "pushing" their religion on you even without proselytizing.
No, I don't seriously suggest that we should (or could) stop people from praying for wayward souls like mine. I can even understand your point about proselytizing being a part of various religions. I guess that my stance is that you have the right to do anything in this World (religious or not) that doesn't interfere with another person or cause that person harm. Praying for someone (even if they find it offensive) doesn't cause them any harm. Attempting to convert them to your faith does (imho, yours may differ). Denying them a right that they should have otherwise should also be frowned upon. This could be anything from the oppression of women in Muslim countries to the attempted oppression of abortion rights and stem cell research in Western countries.
I guess my comments about being offended by people praying for me stems from the fact that a lot of people just throw it into your face when you refuse to agree with them. I had the misfortune of spending a large part of my youth in the deep American south (read: bible belt). As somebody from the more liberal and secular northeast it was quite a culture shock for me. When I told people that I didn't share their values they would often reply with "I feel pity for you... I'll pray for you" I regard that as offensive and insulting.
But to answer your question, no I don't get offended at "god bless you" in response to a sneeze. I suppose if I was lying in a hospital bed waiting to die that I wouldn't begrudge my more religious friends for praying for me either. There's a difference between that type of prayer and the "I'll pray for your soul" just because somebody doesn't share your values and you think they are going to hell.
If you intend specifically to be speaking towards me about being intolerant... Hm... I honestly don't see what you're refering to, but I'm willing to listen to them.
No, it wasn't directed at you. I was referring to the fact that a lot of non-religious things that are intolerant bear a striking similarity to certain fundamentalist interpretations of religion that demand unquestioning devotion. The best example (at the risk of invoking Goodwin's law) that I could think of would be the Nazi regime in Germany. They demanded unquestioning loyalty and support and were quite intolerant. A lot of religions demand the same kind of unquestioning devotion.
You seem like a fairly reasonable and tolerant person. I hope I've made some more sense and points with this post. I suppose we need a Babelfish that does English->English translation ;)
I would argue that most truly religious people would die for their god. I know I would - and I'd like to think I'm sane. From a religious standpoint, nothing is more important than God. That's not to say that family isn't important - just that a relationship with an omnipotent being is more so.
If he is so friggen omnipotent then why do you need to die for him?
I'm sorry that my religion makes you feel uncomfortable. Did you ever think that maybe your anti-religious attitude makes others feel uncomfortable the same way you're made uncomfortable by their attitudes?
You don't know enough about me to assume that I have an anti-religious attitude. If you were inclined to dig back deeply enough into my comment history you'd find me arguing against the kind of insanity that files lawsuits over nativity scenes in public spaces.
I'm sick of hearing people talking about how religion is so intolerant, and unsympathetic, then watching them turn around and be the same back towards those that do express religion, no matter if they are acting reasonably or not.
Where did I express intolerance? Did I say that religion was stupid? I recall saying that I was sick of people who use religion to pretend that they are morally superior to everybody else. I've also said that I'm sick of people using religion to push their beliefs on other people. That doesn't even need to be proselytizing. I'd wager that the untold numbers of people suffering from degenerative diseases are getting sick and tired of hearing moral arguments about stem cell research. I find it absolutely incomprehensible how "potential life" can outweigh "actual life". But that's just me.
I'm not intolerant towards religion. I'm intolerant towards intolerant followers of religion.
Religion has no monopoly on hypocracy, or intolerance.
No, but most of your non-religious things that are intolerant (certain political thoughts come to mind) bear a striking similarity to religion in the unquestioning devotion they demand of their followers. Just food for thought.