Just because we have charities, doesn't mean we don't want companies that are paid to do the job properly. Last think I want is unwashed, spotty, know-it-all software engineers with no browser experience whatsoever throwing 'improvements' everywhere. And yes, I fully understand I have the option not to take these.
Half the problem with Firefox is stupid extensions that leak, freeze and crash computers. I like Opera like it is, fully tested.
Firstly, the GP was talking about electric cars in general, and you decided to attack one specific car which, by all accounts I've seen, the manufacturer only made to 'prove' how bad electric cars are. About 10 minutes ago I knew nothing about this and the little research I've done makes this sound like a venture that GM wanted to fail. Oh, and the Clinton administration funded a lot of the design and production, so they didn't even have to fork out much to ensure they continued to sell noisy, polluting, comparably unreliable petrol cars. They didn't even have to actually sell any, they only leased them with no option to buy. They leased out the cars, pretended they'd failed, and then took them back. Easy money and guaranteed future income.
Secondly, a complete redesign does NOT equal a more complicated car. Please tap into that vast engineering knowledge you obviously have and explain better how an electric motor is more complicated than a petrol engine.
If you forget about replacing 2000 pounds of batteries every year, you're absolutely right.
Depends on how much you drive. Most people accept that electric cars at the moment are inner-city cars designed to save money and produce less pollution. Given also the limited range, you're not going to be taking these across country. Also, you're saving two thirds of your petrol costs. Even if the running cost was more than a petrol car, I'm not even going to try and put the price on a cleaner planet.
After all, these are highly lethal voltages on these cars. One wrong move and you're fried.
Ever tried lighting a cigarette while filling up at a gas station? Or maybe even placing your hand on any part of a petrol engine after it's been running for an hour. Consider that petrol cars run on a series of (admittedly) very small explosions, that to the average consumer running and operating an electric car is similar to plugging in an electric heater, and that the running voltage is approximately 300 volts which is only 25% more than the apparently lethal voltage that runs through UK mains sockets. It is a car company's responsibility to ensure that cars are safe, in the same way that it is an appliance manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the appliance is no danger to the consumer. If the car is a danger then you design it better. You don't release it and then tell everyone "LOOK! Electric cars aren't safe!"
That's (just one) of the problems with these cars. GM couldn't sell them. They would be on the hook for way too much at the end of the day.
Actually, quite a few people offered to buy the cars and waive GM's liabilities, but GM still refused to sell them. No matter whether you think they would be 'on the hook' for this, they wouldn't have been.
Seriously, since when was the fact that companies do everything in their power to find information about what customers want a new thing? They've been doing it since they existed. The internet just makes it easier.
I've always thought that buying a $600 dollar console is worth dumping thousands of dollars of equipment into the garbage for. I'm glad I found someone who finally agrees.
I don't think people who use the word irregardless sound like blithering idiots. At this moment in time, I would define a blithering idiot as someone who argues etymology with someone when their original point was nothing to do with etymology at all, continuing on the same blind path of reasoning despite being told that they'd got the wrong end of the stick.
My original point was, when trying to prove a point, don't post things that explicity say that you're wrong. It's just silly. Silly like having to explain yourself twice to some prat on the internet because they want to have the argument they want to have, not the argument they should have been having.
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Well done. You proved that irregardless isn't a word by linking to an article that specifically says it's a word. What's the fun in shooting people down if they hand you the gun fully loaded?
Where is the proof the laptop was indeed sent in already faulty condition?
The fact that the laptop was delivered below the specs listed suggests a general dishonesty that would also lead the seller to sell a broken laptop. Also, I suspect that if he expected the laptop to be actually usable, he would as a potential barrister have the presence of mind and foresight to wipe the contents first.
I am British, and being British I appreciate not only irony but also 'just desserts'. A man who deliberately set out to defraud someone has reaped his reward!
When I switched from Norton to AVG because I was a penniless student, AVG found 3 viruses that Norton completely missed. When my father used Norton for his business he lost 2 days of chargeable business to a virus (SirCam) that was widely known about for weeks but wasn't detected by Norton because it hid in the Recycle Bin.
People use Norton because it's called Norton. It's bloated and it's useless.
Standard progression.
Starts off mechanical (clunk), goes to functional (silence), goes to asthetically pleasing (boink).
It'll finish with some kind of futuristic lasery noise (pew?), you mark my words.
By the way, I'm assuming you're the same AC who originally complained about the use of the word dwindling, which incidentally was spot on. If you aren't, then you could probably mitigate that kind of confusion. I've heard there's a way to uniquely identify yourself when making a comment on Slashdot.
I don't own an iPod (thank god), so putting 'a little leverage' in the instructions you put above does not bode well for casual users, and laws have to be applicable to the lowest common denominator.
Think of the stupidest person you could possibly think of that could walk and talk at the same time. Would you trust them to replace an iPod battery?
One would imagine it would add a similar amount to how much those companies paid Dell to put the 'crapware' on the system. What, did you think someone would do your research for you?
I'm still happy building my own machines, seeing as they seem to invariably outperform any similar specification Dell for a significant amount less cash. It doesn't take a degree in computer science seeing as everything is practically colour-coded nowadays.
Not everyone that uses OSS is a coder, and I would cynically include most tech departments in that bracket. So should I 'pay back' my usage of open source software by making potentially damaging changes?
Even if these people are coders and they have made modifications, are you saying that free software isn't free at all because you have to spend time you charge your customers for justifying your use of it?
Here I was thinking that software that was provided to me for free actually didn't require me to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it because they are plain stupids?
As far as I'm concerned, this is Slashdot quote of the day.
Multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a diseased mind. Oh, and so is not liking the Gamecube.
Because it's not in their best interests to do so?
Is it possible you could tell me where you learned your attitude of default hostility from so I can avoid it?
Just because we have charities, doesn't mean we don't want companies that are paid to do the job properly. Last think I want is unwashed, spotty, know-it-all software engineers with no browser experience whatsoever throwing 'improvements' everywhere. And yes, I fully understand I have the option not to take these.
Half the problem with Firefox is stupid extensions that leak, freeze and crash computers. I like Opera like it is, fully tested.
Firstly, the GP was talking about electric cars in general, and you decided to attack one specific car which, by all accounts I've seen, the manufacturer only made to 'prove' how bad electric cars are. About 10 minutes ago I knew nothing about this and the little research I've done makes this sound like a venture that GM wanted to fail. Oh, and the Clinton administration funded a lot of the design and production, so they didn't even have to fork out much to ensure they continued to sell noisy, polluting, comparably unreliable petrol cars. They didn't even have to actually sell any, they only leased them with no option to buy. They leased out the cars, pretended they'd failed, and then took them back. Easy money and guaranteed future income.
Secondly, a complete redesign does NOT equal a more complicated car. Please tap into that vast engineering knowledge you obviously have and explain better how an electric motor is more complicated than a petrol engine.
If you forget about replacing 2000 pounds of batteries every year, you're absolutely right.
Depends on how much you drive. Most people accept that electric cars at the moment are inner-city cars designed to save money and produce less pollution. Given also the limited range, you're not going to be taking these across country. Also, you're saving two thirds of your petrol costs. Even if the running cost was more than a petrol car, I'm not even going to try and put the price on a cleaner planet.
After all, these are highly lethal voltages on these cars. One wrong move and you're fried.
Ever tried lighting a cigarette while filling up at a gas station? Or maybe even placing your hand on any part of a petrol engine after it's been running for an hour. Consider that petrol cars run on a series of (admittedly) very small explosions, that to the average consumer running and operating an electric car is similar to plugging in an electric heater, and that the running voltage is approximately 300 volts which is only 25% more than the apparently lethal voltage that runs through UK mains sockets. It is a car company's responsibility to ensure that cars are safe, in the same way that it is an appliance manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the appliance is no danger to the consumer. If the car is a danger then you design it better. You don't release it and then tell everyone "LOOK! Electric cars aren't safe!"
That's (just one) of the problems with these cars. GM couldn't sell them. They would be on the hook for way too much at the end of the day.
Actually, quite a few people offered to buy the cars and waive GM's liabilities, but GM still refused to sell them. No matter whether you think they would be 'on the hook' for this, they wouldn't have been.
Some things you should keep to yourself, eh?
Yes! The business that Bill Gates is doing is really akin to murdering somebody's mother!
You're acting like trying to make a buck any which (legal) way is akin to killing a woman.
Good call!
Being the horrible geek I am, it's a total of 12 times, making 13 possible Doctors.
I'm going to go right ahead and quote Dr. McNinja right now.
"You know, you and a few fat kids who like to dance and lip sync really need to learn that the internet is viewable by the public."
Seriously, since when was the fact that companies do everything in their power to find information about what customers want a new thing? They've been doing it since they existed. The internet just makes it easier.
Ah, sarcasm on the internet.
One wonders why we bother.
I've always thought that buying a $600 dollar console is worth dumping thousands of dollars of equipment into the garbage for. I'm glad I found someone who finally agrees.
I don't think people who use the word irregardless sound like blithering idiots. At this moment in time, I would define a blithering idiot as someone who argues etymology with someone when their original point was nothing to do with etymology at all, continuing on the same blind path of reasoning despite being told that they'd got the wrong end of the stick.
My original point was, when trying to prove a point, don't post things that explicity say that you're wrong. It's just silly. Silly like having to explain yourself twice to some prat on the internet because they want to have the argument they want to have, not the argument they should have been having.
Just like inflammable is the opposite of flammable! Oh, and you totally missed the point I was actually making. Nice.
From the site you linked to:
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Well done. You proved that irregardless isn't a word by linking to an article that specifically says it's a word. What's the fun in shooting people down if they hand you the gun fully loaded?
Where is the proof the laptop was indeed sent in already faulty condition?
The fact that the laptop was delivered below the specs listed suggests a general dishonesty that would also lead the seller to sell a broken laptop. Also, I suspect that if he expected the laptop to be actually usable, he would as a potential barrister have the presence of mind and foresight to wipe the contents first.
I am British, and being British I appreciate not only irony but also 'just desserts'. A man who deliberately set out to defraud someone has reaped his reward!
That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
When I switched from Norton to AVG because I was a penniless student, AVG found 3 viruses that Norton completely missed. When my father used Norton for his business he lost 2 days of chargeable business to a virus (SirCam) that was widely known about for weeks but wasn't detected by Norton because it hid in the Recycle Bin.
People use Norton because it's called Norton. It's bloated and it's useless.
There's a joke here about 'Apples', 'fans', and 'whining', but I'm too cool to make it. ;)
Standard progression. Starts off mechanical (clunk), goes to functional (silence), goes to asthetically pleasing (boink). It'll finish with some kind of futuristic lasery noise (pew?), you mark my words.
Which is because there's a new series on.
By the way, I'm assuming you're the same AC who originally complained about the use of the word dwindling, which incidentally was spot on. If you aren't, then you could probably mitigate that kind of confusion. I've heard there's a way to uniquely identify yourself when making a comment on Slashdot.
I don't own an iPod (thank god), so putting 'a little leverage' in the instructions you put above does not bode well for casual users, and laws have to be applicable to the lowest common denominator.
Think of the stupidest person you could possibly think of that could walk and talk at the same time. Would you trust them to replace an iPod battery?
From what you wrote, I don't think so.
One would imagine it would add a similar amount to how much those companies paid Dell to put the 'crapware' on the system. What, did you think someone would do your research for you?
I'm still happy building my own machines, seeing as they seem to invariably outperform any similar specification Dell for a significant amount less cash. It doesn't take a degree in computer science seeing as everything is practically colour-coded nowadays.
Not everyone that uses OSS is a coder, and I would cynically include most tech departments in that bracket. So should I 'pay back' my usage of open source software by making potentially damaging changes?
Even if these people are coders and they have made modifications, are you saying that free software isn't free at all because you have to spend time you charge your customers for justifying your use of it?
Here I was thinking that software that was provided to me for free actually didn't require me to pay for it.
Score another one for Godwin's Law...
Let me play Devil's Advocate.
Why should my bank spend my invested money giving out free code to people I don't do business with?
I'm not just talking about some sort of obligation to the common good, because, lets face it, when did a bank ever act for the common good?