That's a pretty stupid argument. They also have the power to establish the Armed Forces. Should we shut those down too in favor of private replacements because they don't have to do it?
And that's exactly what would happen if UPS and FedEx were allowed to compete with the USPS. They would cherry pick the most profitable routes, and leave the USPS holding the bag with all the unprofitable ones.
The problem with that idea is, how do you know where those miles were driven? How do you know how many were driven in, say, California, and how many were driven in Nevada?
Wanting people to pay for the roads they use is now somehow trying to keep them from moving about the country? Yeah, your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight.
No, you think harder about this. You're basically arguing for the precedent that all a company has to do in this situation is drag things out as long as they can, and the amount they'll have to pay off goes down dramatically. Instead of having to make someone whole with the value of the product at the time of the defect, they just have to go with the value of the product today. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
This whole case was mistargeted. It should have been the class versus the manufacturers who sold the laptops, who could have in turn sued nVidia for their loses.
Why? It was nVidia's defective part. Why should we have to take an extra step, instead of going after those directly responsible?
Well, your logic is flawed. Rather than arguing if the $12,000 Hyundai is ok, consider what you're really asking for. You want a new $50,000 truck to replace your 4 1/2 year old truck.
And your logic is flawed as well. It's not a 4 1/2 year old truck; its a truck that was defective when new. Had the manufacturer admitted fault and fixed it, we wouldn't be in this predicament. But because of their actions in denying and dragging out the action, 4 1/2 years went by. Why should the consumer be penalized because the manufacturer used their army of lawyers to draw things out? Should they not be made whole with the value of the vehicle at the time of the defect?
But whens the last time you heard of a manufacturer handing over new cars for old cars just because there was a flaw with it. Think hard. Cite a case for me that matches, and I'll be very very impressed.
Who the fuck cares? We're saying how it should be, not how it is. Arguing for the status quo means that we'll never progress.
So if you spent $2000 on a defective product, you shouldn't be made whole with $2000 worth of product? Just because you say that's "how it works" doesn't make it in any way, shape, or form right.
It is quite crazy, at it was nVidia's actions which caused the delay. Since it was their fault, and their delay, they should be forced to offer a replacement worth the same as what the laptop was worth back then.
And since it was their fault, and their refusal to fix the problem which prompted the suit, they should have to give what that laptop was worth back then.
Bullshit. For one, yours is a warranty replacement. We're talking about a class action for a defective product. They should give something comparable to today's computers, not something comparable to the thing of 3 years ago.
The only people who get excited about new BBs are those in the enterprise world. That's about it. And that market is quickly shrinking and becoming saturated.
Why would you want to wait until the data hits the Windows box to scan for it? Catch it early, and dispose of it on a machine that isn't susceptible to it.
You can think whatever you want. However, my description matches what actually happened.
No, it doesn't. Your description is a wild leap to conclusions. Because someone chose funding route X, obviously they are less qualified than someone who chose funding route Y, right?
Do you think reasonable people look at opportunities and just turn away when they are good opportunities?
Do you think it's reasonable that said investors know of every single opportunity in the world with which to support art?
However, in real life....people take advantage of good opportunities if they recognize them for what they are.
Because supporting art is a huge investment opportunity. You realize this is a way to get funding for creative endeavors, which gives no real return, except maybe a copy of the item, if it is funded, right?
And to the other posters point: agreed that it is not the final arbiter. But it is the primary arbiter.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you just now realized that you don't get the same amount of gold from 1792 for your dollar, and that the dollar was taken off the Gold Standard?
News flash: Old laws can be changed and superseded by new laws. It was not long ago that sodomy was a punishable offense.
That's a pretty stupid argument. They also have the power to establish the Armed Forces. Should we shut those down too in favor of private replacements because they don't have to do it?
So .. what is your point?? Where is it written that every American has the right to get daily mail??
The US Constitution. You might want to read up on it sometime.
I'm pretty sure internet access in the middle of nowhere is quite shitty, and barely serviceable.
Because someone who lives on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere is going to have a decent Internet connection. Right.
And that's exactly what would happen if UPS and FedEx were allowed to compete with the USPS. They would cherry pick the most profitable routes, and leave the USPS holding the bag with all the unprofitable ones.
It is a Constitutionally Mandated function of Government. Ron Paul types should be all over this.
I'm referring to the idea that wanting citizens to pay for roads is trying to deter them from traveling. The GPS thing is spooky, agreed.
The problem with that idea is, how do you know where those miles were driven? How do you know how many were driven in, say, California, and how many were driven in Nevada?
Wanting people to pay for the roads they use is now somehow trying to keep them from moving about the country? Yeah, your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight.
No, you think harder about this. You're basically arguing for the precedent that all a company has to do in this situation is drag things out as long as they can, and the amount they'll have to pay off goes down dramatically. Instead of having to make someone whole with the value of the product at the time of the defect, they just have to go with the value of the product today. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
This whole case was mistargeted. It should have been the class versus the manufacturers who sold the laptops, who could have in turn sued nVidia for their loses.
Why? It was nVidia's defective part. Why should we have to take an extra step, instead of going after those directly responsible?
Well, your logic is flawed. Rather than arguing if the $12,000 Hyundai is ok, consider what you're really asking for. You want a new $50,000 truck to replace your 4 1/2 year old truck.
And your logic is flawed as well. It's not a 4 1/2 year old truck; its a truck that was defective when new. Had the manufacturer admitted fault and fixed it, we wouldn't be in this predicament. But because of their actions in denying and dragging out the action, 4 1/2 years went by. Why should the consumer be penalized because the manufacturer used their army of lawyers to draw things out? Should they not be made whole with the value of the vehicle at the time of the defect?
But whens the last time you heard of a manufacturer handing over new cars for old cars just because there was a flaw with it. Think hard. Cite a case for me that matches, and I'll be very very impressed.
Who the fuck cares? We're saying how it should be, not how it is. Arguing for the status quo means that we'll never progress.
So if you spent $2000 on a defective product, you shouldn't be made whole with $2000 worth of product? Just because you say that's "how it works" doesn't make it in any way, shape, or form right.
It is quite crazy, at it was nVidia's actions which caused the delay. Since it was their fault, and their delay, they should be forced to offer a replacement worth the same as what the laptop was worth back then.
And since it was their fault, and their refusal to fix the problem which prompted the suit, they should have to give what that laptop was worth back then.
Bullshit. For one, yours is a warranty replacement. We're talking about a class action for a defective product. They should give something comparable to today's computers, not something comparable to the thing of 3 years ago.
Think about it another way. You bought a modern-for-then computer, which was defective. Why shouldn't your replacement be a modern-for-now computer?
And why shouldn't they get one? They got a modern-at-the-time computer that was defective, why shouldn't the replacement be a modern for now computer?
And all of that is extremely shitty, UX wise, compared to the way the iPad, and now the Honeycomb tablets are doing it.
I would bet that the iPad sales have greatly eclipsed those Tablet PC sales.
The only people who get excited about new BBs are those in the enterprise world. That's about it. And that market is quickly shrinking and becoming saturated.
Do enough people outside of the Enterprise world care?
Why would you want to wait until the data hits the Windows box to scan for it? Catch it early, and dispose of it on a machine that isn't susceptible to it.
You can think whatever you want. However, my description matches what actually happened.
No, it doesn't. Your description is a wild leap to conclusions. Because someone chose funding route X, obviously they are less qualified than someone who chose funding route Y, right?
Do you think reasonable people look at opportunities and just turn away when they are good opportunities?
Do you think it's reasonable that said investors know of every single opportunity in the world with which to support art?
However, in real life....people take advantage of good opportunities if they recognize them for what they are.
Because supporting art is a huge investment opportunity. You realize this is a way to get funding for creative endeavors, which gives no real return, except maybe a copy of the item, if it is funded, right?
And to the other posters point: agreed that it is not the final arbiter. But it is the primary arbiter.
Again, no. It's no arbiter at all.
If you don't think a project has any value, then don't donate to it. Simple.