The other thing is that the media companies' players all suck. They are utter shit. They are a pain to use. I gave up on CBS/Fox/etc and now wait it out for Amazon or Netflix.
It's very clear that whatever organization designed those players either used high school programmers and/or had a requirements alteration every week. The end product provides a horrible experience. And all these guys constantly keep updating the website for slower, flashy designs. The whole experience is crap.
Hulu had it right in the very beginning. And all these dumbasses thought "We can own the storefront too, it's easy!" It IS easy, but they aren't competent enough for it. They screwed Hulu and now we are stuck with all these sites that couldn't hold up to a 2005 version of Hulu!
I just want to add on #2, that the credits were designed with both Nissan Leaf and GM Volt in mind. All the big manufacturers also asked that Toyota (Prius) not be given a credit because they were too far ahead in the field.
And it does irk me when people look at market sector subsidies to encourage competition & adoption; they single out the one or two successful vendors and say they are getting an unfair advantage.
If people looked at the histories of Ford, Lockheed, Chase Bank, etc... they would understand just what tailor made subs are. The solar, electric, and even present day oil subs just aren't comparable.
...they're closer to but still greater than the price you would pay on...
THIS! So for most rewards programs, I have found this to be true. It drives me nuts that after all those resources spent on promotion of the program, websites, call centers, programming, tracking algorithms, and service upkeep, that all one gets is second rate pricing! Worse, in many cases, the rewards are based on non-discounted purchases only. So you spend MSRP on something, you collect rewards, and then you spend maket value+$ on something else. If you went to a discount website and Amazon, you would have spent LESS for both.
And then I get a little sad that these programs have been around for years which means enough ppl are using them to keep them profitable.
Don't worry, the system will screw itself up. Eventually some smart selfless cookie will liberate this information. Pass it onto all the media outlets, foreign countries, and terrorist groups.
Put some high ranking politicians, rich people, and celebrities at the top. Generate some simple reports that make good one liner headlines. Fill in the blanks, not all of it has to be true... just almost all.
That will wake up the population. Then the regulations come in. HIPPA x5. It no longer becomes worth it to collect that information. Companies will throw it out the minute they are done with it. Down side... we will have to enter our CC or bank data every month to pay the bill.
This is a nice attention alert to all the white hats, script kiddies, hackers, and delinquents. This appears like a David and Goliath situation. Guess who the general populace sides with?
What old farts in their golden chairs don't realize is that their business sits on a large solid foundation of social tolerance.
You pissing off even a small part of society, you start getting equipment and infrastructure stolen, vandalized, or damaged. You have trouble recruiting and keeping the best and brightest. You get more hackings, and people start "stealing" your service more.
Why not? You lost their respect. It's not laws and rules that keep people honest, it's respect and tolerance.
How did you talk about small government and not talk about the biggest expenditures?
(2015)- Social Security benefits make up 20%. Followed by Military, Medicare, Unemployment, and other HC at ~15% each. 6% is net interest on debt. 5% is Vet benefits. The remaining ~25% is everything else.
Of the top 5, only Miliary is reviewed and set every year. I agree these is a lot to cut here. At the very least stop jumping into decades long wars. The rest are earned promises in the past. So what promises do you want to break to those who already paid in?
You forgot to mention the set of people who don't have HC will go to the Emergency room. ERs have to help people who have a immediate life threatening condition. So this very expensive service is passed onto that one hospital's customer base. But normally because the condition is so far along, the results are poor and people still die.
Those with a future appt with death can't use ERs and need to rely on charity. Which also has really poor results because again they can't do preventative, ongoing, and stable treatments in that financial situation.
Sorry, I stopped reading there to go grab my guns. Came back to see what you wanted to do. Then saw your reply. It wasn't funny, it takes longer to put all these back! Grumble grumble....
I think it was mostly a risky idea and poor skills at managing a business.
Their idea was too risky for a real VC to take on so they got funding from people who just threw money at things without checking the details. A VC would have enforced a reporting and monitoring structure to see product feasibility. Probably also hired some experts for guidance and navigation.
The idea was nice and the tech not impossible. The cash flow management appears to be shortsighted and irresponsible. There also seems to be little results and goal based decision making.
As for the people who lost money, I hope they don't get it back. A good cheap lesson taught to the general population. Returning the cash just encourages more stupidity and doesn't drive the lesson home.
People who don't have cash to throw around shouldn't throw it around. Don't take high risk investments and then complain when they fall through. There are plenty of lower risk investments, just don't complain that it didn't make enough or has too much regulations.
No the PROPER way to pay for the TSA is to have them on select routes that people pay extra for the added security against terrorists.
Those who don't want to pay or can't afford the cost can fly without the benefit of the added security against terrorists. They can go back to the risky flights of the pre-2011 days. As the demand for the latter wanes, we can switch that route to TSA only. In no time, all routes will be TSA secure and well funded!
Other countries have additional cost factors that don't make this as good of an ROI like India. 1) Labor cost is usually higher in most other countries. This jacks up the installation & maintenance costs of panels. 2) Other than Russia, China, & Japan, most other nations do not have the Diesel rail volume & revenues to justify this retrofit. Note India isn't doing this to their electrical nor AC compartments. They are doing this for their low cost metal boxes on wheels. 3) Many countries do not have the solar availability nor energy conservation (we are talking about fans, open windows, & LEDs here, not AC units) to have the panels offset much. (ie: Russia, northern EU). 4) Many countries have a cheaper and more reliable electrical grid that makes panels nothing more than a PR stunt. For these, it makes more sense to co-locate the panels and provide energy directly to the rail system; rather than run around on the cars (ie: US, Japan, & EU). 5) Other countries (ie: African) do not have the political and/or economic stability to be able to fund & maintain panels for long
China is a good candidate for solar on car roofs. But it makes more sense for them to invest their labor and resources in grid power and rail electrification infrastructure. They have tons of coal for traditional power or political stability to co-locate a bunch of panels in the middle of no where.
For India, I am sure they are working on co-located solar but it is a bit harder. Every state, politician, and local tribe/cast will put demands on it. The local government may even demand 50% of the power to be provided free of charge to the local grid or "Stuff breaks on its own". These demands can change with every incoming political party. For the rail system, they can easily control what goes on their cars and runs around on their rails.
India already has a vast electrified rail network and it continues to grow. But the cost of that is pretty big and maintenance is hard. So many lines running through remote locations and/or steep grades are still diesel. Diesel maybe dirty, but per pound, it is pretty efficient, easy to transport, reliable, easy to fix, and requires minimum skills to work with.
I have plenty of money to my name. I am not super rich but much better off than my average fellow American. Almost entirely thanks to my father and his investment in my education (yes I went to public school). You have no need for more of my personal details.
Most homes have 10, 20, and even 50 year roof & foundation warranties against build defects. It may not cost as much but that is something you are in one way or other paying up front. Similarly, the panels can have warrant, replacement, and cost rolled into the value of the house to spread across 30 years of mortgage. The HVAC, plumbing, flooring, lawn, etc are all done that way, why can't solar? We get loans for shitty assets like cars. Are panels worse?
And I am not sure what you mean by "raping you on interest". My company 401k gets a slightly better return than my current mortgage interest rate. There are mortgage rates just 1-2 percent higher than inflation. That means spending all the money now is almost no better than spending it over 30 years on a loan. Assuming you have no investment options.
Are we talking about the same "Trickle Down" that ended in the greatest recession in the history of the country? The one that needed major bail outs to the auto, finance, and banking industries? The one that still dropped like a stone even after the use once every 50 years foreign income tax credit that brought all that stashed foreign cash in?
That's so much worse! That's shows how crap their release process is. Even internal dev testing of the release should have caught that. Can you imagine the number of bugs that could be released from such a process. It would be as bad as a zero day exploit.
My guess is that it was intentional. Some PHB thought up the idea of an additional revenue stream at the last minute and the yesmen couldn't get giddy enough on it. Then they bypassed any sane QA/UAT testing to meet the release date. The mistake was that no one with decision making power realized the level of backlash it could cause.
As the GP, I also gave up on HTC a long time ago. Most of the Android vendors are like this thou:/ They think commitment means 6-12 months. Hopefully there is a massive cost from complaints, returns, and a clear sales drop. The others need a lesson on customer satisfaction.
The US isn't backward. A lot of people here just don't understand the credit system and thus don't trust it. Even among those that do, there is a small but not insignificant portion that still don't trust it.
As a percentage of overall sales, Americans use credit far more than the rest of the world. And we purchase far more in credit than most of the world.
For US, credit is far easier than in the U.K. It's not unusual for a person to have multiple CCs and to have $10k in credit limits (not that ppl spend that much every month). Prior to Chip no PIN, it was extremely easy to use your CC. You can swipe your card while the total tallies. The signature wasn't even needed on most transactions. Disputes against fraudulent or unsatisfactory charges (advertised isn't what you got) are extremely easy here. It takes 5-10 min to login and write the email.
Even today, we just don't need the security measures that most of the world appears to require. Our domestic fraud level is very low.
The 2%-5% fee that people here are complaining about is really small compared to the business costs of collecting, and transporting cash. For M&P stores, it maybe nothing but anyone doing $10k a month in sales (not profits), cash has a lot of use costs.
That's true for MOST gov fees, charges, taxes, etc. That's because of the loop hole. Which is that the agency doesn't support CC itself. It outsources it to a 3rd party who will pay them the exact amount that is due. However they will charge a service fee which is billed directly to you as along with the amount due. That fee is the CC fee plus the service offering cost.
It's not just the security, there are many other aspects of carrying cash around that make me lean Credit. I see my CU/ATM once every 5 months. That's about 2-3 visits a year. With CCs, I don't need to go waste time making that trip.
Also, I carry about 3-4 cards in my wallet. They take up a lot less space than the change from a cash purchase. I rarely carry more than $20, never had a need for more. On business travel, I carry $40 just in case.
I like having the transaction history to review every month. I like the categorization and spending information that I can review on a monthly and year-by-year basis. It helps me budget and do a cash flow assessment real quick on an aggregate level (i.e. How much did I spend on gas, restaurants, etc.)
Disputes are extremely easy. Rare they are, it takes me less than 5 minutes and I am not out of pocket any funds while the investigation happens. CC replacements (thx Target:/) take two business days.
I get 1-5% cash back rewards for my purchases. And I am actually faster with my CC purchases than with my cash (recently the chip really slowed me down and am pissed:/). I don't use the latter often enough to know if I have exact change. And then there are tons of secondary benefits like rental insurance, flight luggage coverage, extended warrant, ease of returns, etc.
My cards are accepted world over. I don't need to worry about local currency and many times the exchange rate + fee is less than what I can get locally (so far only a foreign branch of my local bank seems to give a better rate).
As for privacy, it bothers me a little. But I like some aspects of it. I actually don't mind targeted ads. The ads are always there, might as well be pertenant to what I am actually looking for. A brand figured out that my wife was pregnant, so I started seeing deals and coupons for diapers and formula! A little creepy but useful. The alternative is pointless ads and stores that don't know how much baby formula or milk to stock because they can't predict their local customer base's needs.
Anyway what I have come to realize is people go with what they are comfortable with. Cash is simple, safe, and more convenient for them so they use it. I feel the same exact way for credit.
From a liability standpoint, companies & their insurance companies do not like cash sitting on the floor. It maybe $20 for you, but that easily adds to 5 figures in minutes across the stores.
Also, the transaction got booked in the system but the cash behind it will take a riskier and more expensive route to get to the coffers. A electronic IOU is far safer.... YES, even with all the hackings going on across the system.
Slashdot Mirror
The other thing is that the media companies' players all suck. They are utter shit. They are a pain to use. I gave up on CBS/Fox/etc and now wait it out for Amazon or Netflix.
It's very clear that whatever organization designed those players either used high school programmers and/or had a requirements alteration every week. The end product provides a horrible experience. And all these guys constantly keep updating the website for slower, flashy designs. The whole experience is crap.
Hulu had it right in the very beginning. And all these dumbasses thought "We can own the storefront too, it's easy!" It IS easy, but they aren't competent enough for it. They screwed Hulu and now we are stuck with all these sites that couldn't hold up to a 2005 version of Hulu!
I just want to add on #2, that the credits were designed with both Nissan Leaf and GM Volt in mind. All the big manufacturers also asked that Toyota (Prius) not be given a credit because they were too far ahead in the field.
And it does irk me when people look at market sector subsidies to encourage competition & adoption; they single out the one or two successful vendors and say they are getting an unfair advantage.
If people looked at the histories of Ford, Lockheed, Chase Bank, etc... they would understand just what tailor made subs are. The solar, electric, and even present day oil subs just aren't comparable.
...they're closer to but still greater than the price you would pay on ...
THIS! So for most rewards programs, I have found this to be true. It drives me nuts that after all those resources spent on promotion of the program, websites, call centers, programming, tracking algorithms, and service upkeep, that all one gets is second rate pricing! Worse, in many cases, the rewards are based on non-discounted purchases only. So you spend MSRP on something, you collect rewards, and then you spend maket value+$ on something else. If you went to a discount website and Amazon, you would have spent LESS for both.
And then I get a little sad that these programs have been around for years which means enough ppl are using them to keep them profitable.
Don't worry, the system will screw itself up. Eventually some smart selfless cookie will liberate this information. Pass it onto all the media outlets, foreign countries, and terrorist groups.
Put some high ranking politicians, rich people, and celebrities at the top. Generate some simple reports that make good one liner headlines. Fill in the blanks, not all of it has to be true... just almost all.
That will wake up the population. Then the regulations come in. HIPPA x5. It no longer becomes worth it to collect that information. Companies will throw it out the minute they are done with it. Down side... we will have to enter our CC or bank data every month to pay the bill.
This is a nice attention alert to all the white hats, script kiddies, hackers, and delinquents. This appears like a David and Goliath situation. Guess who the general populace sides with?
What old farts in their golden chairs don't realize is that their business sits on a large solid foundation of social tolerance.
You pissing off even a small part of society, you start getting equipment and infrastructure stolen, vandalized, or damaged. You have trouble recruiting and keeping the best and brightest. You get more hackings, and people start "stealing" your service more.
Why not? You lost their respect. It's not laws and rules that keep people honest, it's respect and tolerance.
How did you talk about small government and not talk about the biggest expenditures?
(2015)- Social Security benefits make up 20%. Followed by Military, Medicare, Unemployment, and other HC at ~15% each. 6% is net interest on debt. 5% is Vet benefits. The remaining ~25% is everything else.
Of the top 5, only Miliary is reviewed and set every year. I agree these is a lot to cut here. At the very least stop jumping into decades long wars. The rest are earned promises in the past. So what promises do you want to break to those who already paid in?
You forgot to mention the set of people who don't have HC will go to the Emergency room. ERs have to help people who have a immediate life threatening condition. So this very expensive service is passed onto that one hospital's customer base. But normally because the condition is so far along, the results are poor and people still die.
Those with a future appt with death can't use ERs and need to rely on charity. Which also has really poor results because again they can't do preventative, ongoing, and stable treatments in that financial situation.
Just grab your guns
Sorry, I stopped reading there to go grab my guns. Came back to see what you wanted to do. Then saw your reply. It wasn't funny, it takes longer to put all these back! Grumble grumble....
I think it was mostly a risky idea and poor skills at managing a business.
Their idea was too risky for a real VC to take on so they got funding from people who just threw money at things without checking the details. A VC would have enforced a reporting and monitoring structure to see product feasibility. Probably also hired some experts for guidance and navigation.
The idea was nice and the tech not impossible. The cash flow management appears to be shortsighted and irresponsible. There also seems to be little results and goal based decision making.
As for the people who lost money, I hope they don't get it back. A good cheap lesson taught to the general population. Returning the cash just encourages more stupidity and doesn't drive the lesson home.
People who don't have cash to throw around shouldn't throw it around. Don't take high risk investments and then complain when they fall through. There are plenty of lower risk investments, just don't complain that it didn't make enough or has too much regulations.
No the PROPER way to pay for the TSA is to have them on select routes that people pay extra for the added security against terrorists.
Those who don't want to pay or can't afford the cost can fly without the benefit of the added security against terrorists. They can go back to the risky flights of the pre-2011 days. As the demand for the latter wanes, we can switch that route to TSA only. In no time, all routes will be TSA secure and well funded!
Wow, your post takes up a larger percentage of this entire thread than the domain you are describing does in the programming landscape.
Can you expand on this? First time I am hearing about incompatibility.
Other countries have additional cost factors that don't make this as good of an ROI like India.
1) Labor cost is usually higher in most other countries. This jacks up the installation & maintenance costs of panels.
2) Other than Russia, China, & Japan, most other nations do not have the Diesel rail volume & revenues to justify this retrofit. Note India isn't doing this to their electrical nor AC compartments. They are doing this for their low cost metal boxes on wheels.
3) Many countries do not have the solar availability nor energy conservation (we are talking about fans, open windows, & LEDs here, not AC units) to have the panels offset much. (ie: Russia, northern EU).
4) Many countries have a cheaper and more reliable electrical grid that makes panels nothing more than a PR stunt. For these, it makes more sense to co-locate the panels and provide energy directly to the rail system; rather than run around on the cars (ie: US, Japan, & EU).
5) Other countries (ie: African) do not have the political and/or economic stability to be able to fund & maintain panels for long
China is a good candidate for solar on car roofs. But it makes more sense for them to invest their labor and resources in grid power and rail electrification infrastructure. They have tons of coal for traditional power or political stability to co-locate a bunch of panels in the middle of no where.
For India, I am sure they are working on co-located solar but it is a bit harder. Every state, politician, and local tribe/cast will put demands on it. The local government may even demand 50% of the power to be provided free of charge to the local grid or "Stuff breaks on its own". These demands can change with every incoming political party. For the rail system, they can easily control what goes on their cars and runs around on their rails.
India already has a vast electrified rail network and it continues to grow. But the cost of that is pretty big and maintenance is hard. So many lines running through remote locations and/or steep grades are still diesel. Diesel maybe dirty, but per pound, it is pretty efficient, easy to transport, reliable, easy to fix, and requires minimum skills to work with.
I have plenty of money to my name. I am not super rich but much better off than my average fellow American. Almost entirely thanks to my father and his investment in my education (yes I went to public school). You have no need for more of my personal details.
Most homes have 10, 20, and even 50 year roof & foundation warranties against build defects. It may not cost as much but that is something you are in one way or other paying up front. Similarly, the panels can have warrant, replacement, and cost rolled into the value of the house to spread across 30 years of mortgage. The HVAC, plumbing, flooring, lawn, etc are all done that way, why can't solar? We get loans for shitty assets like cars. Are panels worse?
And I am not sure what you mean by "raping you on interest". My company 401k gets a slightly better return than my current mortgage interest rate. There are mortgage rates just 1-2 percent higher than inflation. That means spending all the money now is almost no better than spending it over 30 years on a loan. Assuming you have no investment options.
Are we talking about the same "Trickle Down" that ended in the greatest recession in the history of the country? The one that needed major bail outs to the auto, finance, and banking industries? The one that still dropped like a stone even after the use once every 50 years foreign income tax credit that brought all that stashed foreign cash in?
Oh crap, I wonder where all these ppl are getting 5,10,15, 20, & 30 year loans for their education, cars, and homes.
That's so much worse! That's shows how crap their release process is. Even internal dev testing of the release should have caught that. Can you imagine the number of bugs that could be released from such a process. It would be as bad as a zero day exploit.
My guess is that it was intentional. Some PHB thought up the idea of an additional revenue stream at the last minute and the yesmen couldn't get giddy enough on it. Then they bypassed any sane QA/UAT testing to meet the release date. The mistake was that no one with decision making power realized the level of backlash it could cause.
As the GP, I also gave up on HTC a long time ago. Most of the Android vendors are like this thou :/ They think commitment means 6-12 months. Hopefully there is a massive cost from complaints, returns, and a clear sales drop. The others need a lesson on customer satisfaction.
The US isn't backward. A lot of people here just don't understand the credit system and thus don't trust it. Even among those that do, there is a small but not insignificant portion that still don't trust it.
As a percentage of overall sales, Americans use credit far more than the rest of the world. And we purchase far more in credit than most of the world.
For US, credit is far easier than in the U.K. It's not unusual for a person to have multiple CCs and to have $10k in credit limits (not that ppl spend that much every month). Prior to Chip no PIN, it was extremely easy to use your CC. You can swipe your card while the total tallies. The signature wasn't even needed on most transactions. Disputes against fraudulent or unsatisfactory charges (advertised isn't what you got) are extremely easy here. It takes 5-10 min to login and write the email.
Even today, we just don't need the security measures that most of the world appears to require. Our domestic fraud level is very low.
The 2%-5% fee that people here are complaining about is really small compared to the business costs of collecting, and transporting cash. For M&P stores, it maybe nothing but anyone doing $10k a month in sales (not profits), cash has a lot of use costs.
Only if you deposit that reward in a Fidelity account and you must have a Fidelity account linked to the card account.
However, still a good card. People can put 2% of their spends toward a Roth IRA retirement account. That will add up pretty high over the decades.
Thank you adding NOTHING to this discussion.
That's true for MOST gov fees, charges, taxes, etc. That's because of the loop hole. Which is that the agency doesn't support CC itself. It outsources it to a 3rd party who will pay them the exact amount that is due. However they will charge a service fee which is billed directly to you as along with the amount due. That fee is the CC fee plus the service offering cost.
You are a bloody idiot who can't parse sentences. Finish 3rd grade first please.
It's not just the security, there are many other aspects of carrying cash around that make me lean Credit. I see my CU/ATM once every 5 months. That's about 2-3 visits a year. With CCs, I don't need to go waste time making that trip.
Also, I carry about 3-4 cards in my wallet. They take up a lot less space than the change from a cash purchase. I rarely carry more than $20, never had a need for more. On business travel, I carry $40 just in case.
I like having the transaction history to review every month. I like the categorization and spending information that I can review on a monthly and year-by-year basis. It helps me budget and do a cash flow assessment real quick on an aggregate level (i.e. How much did I spend on gas, restaurants, etc.)
Disputes are extremely easy. Rare they are, it takes me less than 5 minutes and I am not out of pocket any funds while the investigation happens. CC replacements (thx Target :/) take two business days.
I get 1-5% cash back rewards for my purchases. And I am actually faster with my CC purchases than with my cash (recently the chip really slowed me down and am pissed :/). I don't use the latter often enough to know if I have exact change. And then there are tons of secondary benefits like rental insurance, flight luggage coverage, extended warrant, ease of returns, etc.
My cards are accepted world over. I don't need to worry about local currency and many times the exchange rate + fee is less than what I can get locally (so far only a foreign branch of my local bank seems to give a better rate).
As for privacy, it bothers me a little. But I like some aspects of it. I actually don't mind targeted ads. The ads are always there, might as well be pertenant to what I am actually looking for. A brand figured out that my wife was pregnant, so I started seeing deals and coupons for diapers and formula! A little creepy but useful. The alternative is pointless ads and stores that don't know how much baby formula or milk to stock because they can't predict their local customer base's needs.
Anyway what I have come to realize is people go with what they are comfortable with. Cash is simple, safe, and more convenient for them so they use it. I feel the same exact way for credit.
From a liability standpoint, companies & their insurance companies do not like cash sitting on the floor. It maybe $20 for you, but that easily adds to 5 figures in minutes across the stores.
Also, the transaction got booked in the system but the cash behind it will take a riskier and more expensive route to get to the coffers. A electronic IOU is far safer.... YES, even with all the hackings going on across the system.