I am not a Dvorak basher. He is definitely opinionated, but I kind of admire that. What concerns me about this whole situation is that no one is really walking a mile in those kids shoes. The kids these laptops are aimed at are in many cases living in squalor with little or no food. When they wake up in the morning and their hunger makes their belly hurt, I am sure that they would choose a bowl of rice over a toy without hesitation. Kids from all cultures have little sense of "value". If you don't believe me, ask your seven year old how much money they think you should earn in a year.
Will OLPC save the world? Nope. Will it change the balance of power in the 21st century? I doubt it. Will at least one child who gets one actually use it to learn and eventually find a way to benefit all of mankind? I think so. In the information age, we sometimes forget what life was like before the internet. Our children don't know anything about life without computers. The OLPC initiative attempts to put children from poor countries on a more equal footing with kids that are way better off. I can't find a bad thing to say about this program, other than it is taking to long to implement. Potential corporate sponsors may even want to consider that their outsourcing of tech support jobs may very well employ some of these kids in the future.
Good for Dvorak for pointing out something that we already know, but probably don't like to really think about. His position is as right as anyones.
My only question is what day Skynet becomes self-aware and destroys the planet. I hope it's not next Wednesday. I have to bring the xmas tree out of the crawl space that day.
It IS different than "any other additions/changes they make to the game". The specific changes don't "just happen". They require design and implementation by PEOPLE. This means PAID man-hours of work. Those costs can either be absorbed by the producer and passed along to EVERY consumer of their product. Or the producer can opt NOT to pay for these changes, and allow the free market to come up with a solution.
If I made widgets, and marketed them to the world, but charged more for features that allowed people with specific disablities to use them, the handicapped community would scream discrimination.
It's a trick bag that no manufacturer wants any part of. Can they make games for user friendly for disabled people? Almost certainly. Should they do it? I don't think they should if it means the production costs increase. Shareholders rule. If it impacts the bottom line, the end users should pay.
The companies that design the product, in this case, a game, are "For Profit" entities. They have an obligation to their shareholders or owners to produce a profit. It is most likely not profitable to invest additional resources to making the game accessible by the disabled. The disabled consumer should bear the additional cost, or simply pass on the purchase if they are unwilling to. That's the beauty of a free market economy.
If a person has an identifiable handicap, they should be aware by now that manufacturers are not duty bound to provide access to their products. A great paradigm is the automobile industry. Ford does not make any of their vehicles specifically for persons with handicaps, yet thousands of people that have handicaps drive Fords. Why is this? Ford has a pro-active program in place to encourage purchase by disabled people, offering additional cash incentives to help offset costs for enhancements. The disabled customer can use the money to go to an after-market upfitter and have wheel chair ramps, hand controls, etc., installed and use the incentive to help pay for it. Ford does not offer these upfits as a factory option, but works towards empowerment for the disabled by assisting financially in making their vehicles accessible.
If a software company has a game or other program available that is not designed for the disabled, they are not required to make a version that is. It does open the door for third-party providers to come up with either a hardware or software based solution that can be used. If a person is disabled, and wants to play, they should bear the cost of any enhancements they require, not the software company. Just my two cents.
Re:What's sleazy about getting paid?
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
You would be correct in reminding me about this..*cough cough*..
But I should also indicate that middle class people with bankruptcies are actually pretty good prospects in most cases, and can be financed by sub-prime lenders at rates that are less than buy-here pay-here lots. Remember...the customers in question here are UNFINANCABLE by regular lending institutions. The DEALER is accepting all the risk here.
Re:What's sleazy about getting paid?
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
I think the point you're missing is not that the people "can't possibly pay". Those people will never get a car. These customers are screened pretty carefully at most dealerships. The real problem is the customer who just WON'T pay. The one's who would prefer to blow their paycheck at the casino or bar, rather than pay what they owe. The little box becomes a constant reminder of their obligation.
The used car business is so competitive in most US cities, that this model just wouldn't work. There's always a hungry dealer ready to take a discount to make a deal. In the 1960's when my dad started in the business, there were plenty of "unwritten rules" between competing dealers. With the "SALE SALE SALE" every day of the week mentality that exists now, there's too much pressure to perform on sales managers to let any customer get away!
Re:What's sleazy about getting paid?
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I think the whole point is this: This device is not intended to ensure compliance from everyone. It is designed to minimize risk for the seller. These credit criminals are lucky they aren't hitchhiking or flagging a bus down. These are not the upright citizens that a bank considers credit worthy. They made their credit through their choices. Let them live with it.
Let the/. crowd have their little rant about the legalities and morality involved...but I think if it was their money on the line, they would probably like the ability to incorporate an electric shock function into the device as well.
What's sleazy about getting paid?
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Long time lurker here...
I think I am qualified as an expert, having come from a family of car salesmen. I have been actively involved in the new and used car business for over 20 years. I currently work as internet sales manager at a medium sized Big 3 dealership.
Like all other dealerships, we regularly run "come one, come all" types of sales. While these sales bring out several people with strong credit, it also drags in the absolute dregs of society. We make our living selling cars. Most of these scumbags are simply societal misfits. They are not people with "no credit". There are people with abysmal credit. We see Transunion scores under 500 on a regular basis. These people could not finance a pack of chewing gum without a 700+ score co-buyer. So where does that leave them?
Why at the "b" lot "buy here-pay here" operation. I have a personal friend that is involved in this business. He is a small businessman with limited resources. He does not carry a large inventory, but the cars he does have are decent. He does his best to make sure that the cars he sells are in good running order, as he knows that if the car isn't running, the customer is not going to be paying. He charges exhorbitant interest rates, but he is the one taking all the risk. If the customer skips town with the car, he has the expense of trying to reclaim it. Most of his customers are pretty faithful in paying, but that is only because he is very selective about who he sells to.
Why people think that profit is some kind of crime in the car business is beyond me. Nobody faults the factory worker building the car for pushing for bigger money and benefits. There is no union for salespeople in the car biz. Most dealers offer pretty poor benefit packages.
This device is being used successfully by several dealers. They have invested in technology to protect their financial interests. How is this different than a tech guy investing in quality software to protect their property?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a Dvorak basher. He is definitely opinionated, but I kind of admire that. What concerns me about this whole situation is that no one is really walking a mile in those kids shoes. The kids these laptops are aimed at are in many cases living in squalor with little or no food. When they wake up in the morning and their hunger makes their belly hurt, I am sure that they would choose a bowl of rice over a toy without hesitation. Kids from all cultures have little sense of "value". If you don't believe me, ask your seven year old how much money they think you should earn in a year. Will OLPC save the world? Nope. Will it change the balance of power in the 21st century? I doubt it. Will at least one child who gets one actually use it to learn and eventually find a way to benefit all of mankind? I think so. In the information age, we sometimes forget what life was like before the internet. Our children don't know anything about life without computers. The OLPC initiative attempts to put children from poor countries on a more equal footing with kids that are way better off. I can't find a bad thing to say about this program, other than it is taking to long to implement. Potential corporate sponsors may even want to consider that their outsourcing of tech support jobs may very well employ some of these kids in the future. Good for Dvorak for pointing out something that we already know, but probably don't like to really think about. His position is as right as anyones.
My only question is what day Skynet becomes self-aware and destroys the planet. I hope it's not next Wednesday. I have to bring the xmas tree out of the crawl space that day.
It IS different than "any other additions/changes they make to the game". The specific changes don't "just happen". They require design and implementation by PEOPLE. This means PAID man-hours of work. Those costs can either be absorbed by the producer and passed along to EVERY consumer of their product. Or the producer can opt NOT to pay for these changes, and allow the free market to come up with a solution.
If I made widgets, and marketed them to the world, but charged more for features that allowed people with specific disablities to use them, the handicapped community would scream discrimination.
It's a trick bag that no manufacturer wants any part of. Can they make games for user friendly for disabled people? Almost certainly. Should they do it? I don't think they should if it means the production costs increase. Shareholders rule. If it impacts the bottom line, the end users should pay.
The companies that design the product, in this case, a game, are "For Profit" entities. They have an obligation to their shareholders or owners to produce a profit. It is most likely not profitable to invest additional resources to making the game accessible by the disabled. The disabled consumer should bear the additional cost, or simply pass on the purchase if they are unwilling to. That's the beauty of a free market economy.
If a person has an identifiable handicap, they should be aware by now that manufacturers are not duty bound to provide access to their products. A great paradigm is the automobile industry. Ford does not make any of their vehicles specifically for persons with handicaps, yet thousands of people that have handicaps drive Fords. Why is this? Ford has a pro-active program in place to encourage purchase by disabled people, offering additional cash incentives to help offset costs for enhancements. The disabled customer can use the money to go to an after-market upfitter and have wheel chair ramps, hand controls, etc., installed and use the incentive to help pay for it. Ford does not offer these upfits as a factory option, but works towards empowerment for the disabled by assisting financially in making their vehicles accessible. If a software company has a game or other program available that is not designed for the disabled, they are not required to make a version that is. It does open the door for third-party providers to come up with either a hardware or software based solution that can be used. If a person is disabled, and wants to play, they should bear the cost of any enhancements they require, not the software company. Just my two cents.
You would be correct in reminding me about this..*cough cough*..
But I should also indicate that middle class people with bankruptcies are actually pretty good prospects in most cases, and can be financed by sub-prime lenders at rates that are less than buy-here pay-here lots. Remember...the customers in question here are UNFINANCABLE by regular lending institutions. The DEALER is accepting all the risk here.
I think the point you're missing is not that the people "can't possibly pay". Those people will never get a car. These customers are screened pretty carefully at most dealerships. The real problem is the customer who just WON'T pay. The one's who would prefer to blow their paycheck at the casino or bar, rather than pay what they owe. The little box becomes a constant reminder of their obligation.
The used car business is so competitive in most US cities, that this model just wouldn't work. There's always a hungry dealer ready to take a discount to make a deal. In the 1960's when my dad started in the business, there were plenty of "unwritten rules" between competing dealers. With the "SALE SALE SALE" every day of the week mentality that exists now, there's too much pressure to perform on sales managers to let any customer get away!
I agree. I think the whole point is this: This device is not intended to ensure compliance from everyone. It is designed to minimize risk for the seller. These credit criminals are lucky they aren't hitchhiking or flagging a bus down. These are not the upright citizens that a bank considers credit worthy. They made their credit through their choices. Let them live with it.
/. crowd have their little rant about the legalities and morality involved...but I think if it was their money on the line, they would probably like the ability to incorporate an electric shock function into the device as well.
Let the
Long time lurker here... I think I am qualified as an expert, having come from a family of car salesmen. I have been actively involved in the new and used car business for over 20 years. I currently work as internet sales manager at a medium sized Big 3 dealership. Like all other dealerships, we regularly run "come one, come all" types of sales. While these sales bring out several people with strong credit, it also drags in the absolute dregs of society. We make our living selling cars. Most of these scumbags are simply societal misfits. They are not people with "no credit". There are people with abysmal credit. We see Transunion scores under 500 on a regular basis. These people could not finance a pack of chewing gum without a 700+ score co-buyer. So where does that leave them? Why at the "b" lot "buy here-pay here" operation. I have a personal friend that is involved in this business. He is a small businessman with limited resources. He does not carry a large inventory, but the cars he does have are decent. He does his best to make sure that the cars he sells are in good running order, as he knows that if the car isn't running, the customer is not going to be paying. He charges exhorbitant interest rates, but he is the one taking all the risk. If the customer skips town with the car, he has the expense of trying to reclaim it. Most of his customers are pretty faithful in paying, but that is only because he is very selective about who he sells to. Why people think that profit is some kind of crime in the car business is beyond me. Nobody faults the factory worker building the car for pushing for bigger money and benefits. There is no union for salespeople in the car biz. Most dealers offer pretty poor benefit packages. This device is being used successfully by several dealers. They have invested in technology to protect their financial interests. How is this different than a tech guy investing in quality software to protect their property?