Rich people don't drive those. Same with BMW X5's, Range Rovers, Audi Q7's and Porsche Cayenne's.
These cars are for people who take on massive amounts of debt to look richer than they are.
People driving these cars WANT you to think they have money but they really dont.
Personally I drive a 15 year old modified Nissan 200sx (Silvia S15), it's worth about $13K but it looks and sounds the part because I want people to know I'm faster than them. Many a disappointed expensive SUV driver finds this out the hard way.
Someone else who is also a billionaire – they don't want anything from you!
Anyone who claims that has no understanding of the psychology of the majority of billionaires. See Carly Fiorina and her 'good friend' Steve Jobs for an example. If you're a billionaire, then other billionaires are the ones that have the most of what you value and therefore the best targets. Stealing from the poor is far more effort - you need to steal from loads of them.
In reality it's the opposite. Much easier to steal from poor people who don't track their money.
Take credit card fraud for example, you make much more by stealing $5 from 10000 cards than you do trying to steal $5000 from 10 cards. Banks will question transactions over a certain value where as a lot of people will never read their credit card statement and just have whatever the bank asks for automatically deducted.
Banks are also good at this, taking from everyone one low, low fee at a time (seriously, go look up how credit transactions work, count the number of times "fee" is mentioned, then as "who is paying for it").
I wish Nexus had taken a different tack than Apple, marketing a 16GB phone as entry level when few people are going to be happy with that.
I'm not.
Also I think you're seriously overestimating the number of people who require a lot of storage on their phones. I'd bet that the only reason that people get larger capacity phones is because they're offered to them at the same price with their contract.
Making a small capacity phone that is cheap is a very smart move by Google, there's a lot of people like me who aren't using much storage space on their phone because strangely enough, we're only using it as a communication device (odd concept, I know).
McAffee is... using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.
What's wrong with that, other than your personal morals?
Forget morals, that is just a convenient excuse. For the most part it's jealousy. John McAfee spent a lot of time enjoying himself, the GP has not. Others enjoying life upsets insecure people, they expect everyone to be as miserable as they are.
The excuses they use are inconsequential, if you say that Colombians are happy (well they are) they'll instantly bring up drug wars and Pablo Escobar because they cant accept that someone living a different life, richer or poorer, can be happier than them. They have to say something, anything to bring them down.
I really couldn't care less about the number of prostitutes McAfee has been with. Personally I wish him well in his campaign but I think both me and John McAfee know his chances of election.
They didn't matter anyway, being the "oh I don't get influenced by ads" crowd anyway,
This crowd doesn't block ads because they believe they dont need to.
Advertisers love this crowd because their false sense of security makes them the most susceptible. Advertising affects their decisions, they'll be stratigh down to McDonalds(TM) to get a refreshing Coke(R) as fast as anyone. Advertising affects everyone and to believe you're immune to it is foolish.
I block ads because they DO affect me. This ranges from annoyance to ways I cant consciously perceive (at least easily) and I simply do not like it.
That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. Advertisers have dug their own graves. They were too used to having a captive audience that couldn't do anything like they did with traditional media (print, radio and television). They thought they could get away with anything when we went online but failed to realise that now the recipient now has the ability to control what they see and the advertising industry is not in a hurry to adapt.
It was with puzzlement that I first learned that Americans didn't teach celestial navigation to its officers. It's not that celestial navigation by itself is really all that necessary, because yes, even without it, there are other methods. But the training of it produces officers that have a better understanding of when their machines are lying to them. It, and all the related skills you need to learn to make it work, gives more useful things in your toolbox to draw from. Because I will tell you from experience, it is not a matter of if a GPS will give you a wrong answer. It's a matter of when.
This,
Its not about teaching them how to use a sextant, rather it's about teaching them how to think for them selves.
There will be times where their only navigational aids will be basic, magnetic compass and the old MK I human eyeball. In peace time as well as wartime (although in wartime, it'll be a lot more common).
It's also, if you ask me, not a matter of if but when a shooting war finally breaks out. And if and when it does, you can guarantee that one of the first priorities for the enemy will be to deny NATO (one way or the other) the use of GPS.
This is why the European system, the bloated, expensive and over engineered Galileo (GNSS) operates on it's own frequency as well as that used by GPS and GLONAS (Russia). You can block Galileo without blocking your own system.
I live in Chiang Mai Thailand. I suggest if you really really like the idea of a 'gig economy' then move here for a few months and see how that idea works out in real life. I don't think you'll care for it much as only a few live a decent lifestyle.
If Chaing Mai isn't enough, move down to Phuket, Thailand where the Tuk Tuk drivers are more organised and will beat up anyone violating their turf or trying to run a municipal bus.
Then you'll fall completely out of love with the idea of Uber.
The west experience taxi wars long ago, thats why we regulated them generations ago. If you want to know what it's like without regulations and controls, just head to somewhere like Thailand.
And what stops you from taking a taxi to get home if Uber is too costly?
The irrational hate of the taxi industry.
Yep, this is pretty much the only thing Uber has going in their favour.
People who hate the taxi industry need to believe in Uber. The problem is Uber's business model is unsustainable. They're already having to claw back the drivers cut because they're losing money hand over fist. This means the list of starry-eyed suckers... Erm... I mean drivers is reducing as it costs real money to run a car for commercial purposes (and I bet people think that running a taxi for 12 hours a day is as cheap as driving their runabout for 20 minutes a day). Ironically, this means you'll end up with the most desperate and unemployable, all the things Uberista's complain about the Taxi industry. Drivers that don't speak English, don't wash, cars that are in poor states of cleanliness and repair (did I get that right, I haven't read the Uber Shill handbook) are going to happen to Uber.
"But that's the same as a taxi" I hear the Uber Shill nasally decry, well having lived in places with no taxi regulations where anyone can be a taxi driver... The difference is that a licensed and regulated taxi driver is far less likely to shove a gun in your face whilst stinking of whiskey (which in Thailand is actually made from cane sugar, so it's really Rum). Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat. Thats why western nations implemented taxi regulations many generations ago when jitney drivers would beat each other up in front of customers to protect their turf.
Then they aren't Uber drivers. And as has been noted before, they aren't really employees of Uber in the first place.
So they dont take money from Uber in exchange for providing services as dictated by Uber?
Could have fooled me.
Regardless of what Uber likes to say, the people that work for Uber are employees, even as casuals and subcontractors they still have rights.
However this is a good demonstration why Uber is a self correcting problem and why you shouldn't get attached to them. Uber is losing money hand over fist WHILST they have lower costs because they're ignoring the rules that other transport providers have to follow. In order for Uber to make money they have to give the employees a smaller cut. As they have to be cheaper than legitimate, insured taxi companies this means that the amount drivers get is already small and making it smaller means that only the most desperate will be willing to work for Uber (and don't even contemplate how badly the vehicle is repaired because that comes out of the drivers diminishing cut).
Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!)
.
The problem isn't that modern whitegoods aren't repairable, the problem is the spirit of MacGyver has left our society.
People dont consider how to fix things. When the bulb in a lamp goes it's time to get a new lamp. You cant blame the market to reacting and catering for laziness.
That being said, whitegoods are lasting much longer these days as well as being much cheaper. The last two things that broke on me were the fault of people (damaged whilst moving).
only in america, when somebody promises you something for nothing
Since when is a ~$2,000 contract "nothing"???
Over 2 years that's $83 per month and most of that is paying for the handset.
The thing about people who think their big contributors is that they actually aren't. Your $83 per month is nothing to a multi-billion dollar business in an industry with extremely high barriers to entry (and forget mentioning regulation, they're insignificant. The major barrier is the cost of infrastructure when it comes to the telecommunications industry). Industries like telecommunications aren't worried about losing one customer, mainly because they know that there's someone from a rival telco who has the exact same idea.
You've reminded me of an event I witnessed in a liquor store a few months back. This guy in an average looking suit was berating the only clerk because he wouldn't carry a carton of beer out of the cool room for him. The guy certainly didn't look disabled and there was no-one else to man the counter. The argument boiled down to the fact the guy just didn't want to carry his own stuff and he was using every arrogant trick in the book. The old "I pay you wages", "I earn x hundred thousand a year", "I'm important", "I'm going to get you fired" and all the other tropes people with little man syndrome love to use. Then a old bloke in jeans and a jumper walks up to him and says "sunshine, you're no-one" and hands him a business card before taking his wine to the checkout. The arrogant guy was livid, threw the card to the ground and stormed out.
I picked up the business card, it was a card from a mining giant and said "Director". The guy in an unassuming outfit buying wine was one of the richest people in Perth. I had to shake his hand and tell him he was a great bloke.
Sorry for the Grandpa Simpson story (yes, I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time), but its a good lesson that you should never think you're too important and being humble and polite is more likely to get you what you want.
Once again Jeremy, James and Richard from old new Top Gear were way ahead of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What you need is a large GPS device that only has 4 buttons, Home, Bingo, Shops and Little Jimmy's House. It would also need to randomly point out random local facts like "That place was bombed during the war you know" as you drive by points of interest.
Given the Chevrolet side saddle gas tanks imbroglio, the Ford Pinto, and the Toyota floor mat malfunction,
I'd say Volkswagon can count on the short term memory of the buying public.
Yep, people are still buying automatic VW's after years of DSG failures. They're very quick to forget.
However Volkswagen wont get away with this unscathed. I'll put good money on the fact VAG will need to sell off a few of their non core brands to raise enough capital to pay fines and perform whatever pithy attempt at fixing the issue they try. This means that Bugatti will go, Bentley (I think another large German might like this to compete with Mercedes/Rolls, either that or Tata to complement their ownership of Jaguar/Land Rover), Lamborghini would be a huge capital raise as Lambo is actually profitable and Porsche will take a controlling stake in the company with Porsche boss Mueller at the helm.
VW will get cut down to the core brands of Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda and SEAT as all of these manufacturers basically make the same car (A VW Golf is an Audi A3, SEAT Leon and Skoda Octavia).
In the short term as damage control, VAG will probably try to bring the relatively unknown Euro brands like Skoda and SEAT to the US or at least out of obscurity to increase sales. People who might balk at a VW Golf may very well buy a SEAT Leon after a clever marketing campaign.
So the problem is two-fold: 1) Don't keep a round chambered unless you feel the need to discharge the weapon is imminent. 2) If you have children, select a gun that has actual safety mechanisms (you know, a "safety") that enhances safety and prevents accidental discharges or operation by children.
The problem is, this completely destroys the already flaky "guns defend people" argument.
Lets assume the criminal didn't get the drop on you and you've had time to get your firearm out of your purse (which is pretty unlikely to begin with) are they just going to stand there whilst you check the safety and load a round?
At this point you realise:
1) if you have easy access to guns, so does the crim.
2) the crim has the element of surprise.
3) the crim is not going to wait as you say "excuse me whilst I just take out my gun, check the safety and load a round".
After coming to the simple realisation that in any armed conflict, you are at the disadvantage you then start to ask, if guns are going to be useless in an emergency, why am I not keeping it unloaded and secure in a safe at my home?
Then begins the transition from gun nut to sensible person.
Because you can run from a knife. This stupid strawman is always brought out when people talk about guns.
Not only that, you can fight off a knife attacker with minimal injuries.
The reason crims in Australia are complete cowards is because they know that they might be brave or drunk enough to fight back if they're only armed with a knife. So they only attack in gangs, 5 to 1 in dark alleys. I only know one person who has been mugged in Australia, they did it by hitting her over the back of the head with something and running off with her purse. Just a few days ago in my city, a robber armed with a knife was tackled by staff at a local restaurant and held for police.
Welcome to Australia, where your waiter takes down a knife wielding meth heads with their bare hands, we don't expect a tip, but it's always appreciated.
Just about every electrical outlet is now too small for a toddler to stick things into, even the US Type B socket. We have also mandated RCD's (Residual Current Devcies) to prevent accidental electrocution.
heavy objects knocked of tables?
If you need a law for this, you're seriously broken.
Falls onto hard surface such as stone from furniture?
See above.
However what measures do we take to prevent kids from getting access to firearms? In Australia we have to keep them unloaded and locked up when not in use which is a very sensible thing as we don't have daily toddler shootings (accidental or otherwise) however in the US people seem fit to keep guns loaded in their purse.
I'm also willing to bet the gun wasn't safetied either.
Incidents like this are commonplace in the US and not commonplace in other developed countries because of the insane attitude Americans have towards guns. You shouldn't need to carry guns around for defence, if you do your society is broken. You should have to take responsibility for keeping dangerous objects and locations secure. People should have to be trained and licensed in the operation of a firearm (like we are with cars, which are less dangerous considering their frequency of use). Until this attitude changes, you'll continue to have toddler shootings and mass shootings on a regular basis and gun controls will happen as a natural result of this change in attitude.
They will if they are the sort who abstain from meat due to ethical considerations (the "fish are friends, not food" crowd). Your chemic shitstorm isn't alive so there's no ethical debate about eating them.
The probelm is that the "fish are friends" crowd are also the "chemicals are bad m'kay" crowd. They eat organic, fair trade, ethically cultivated, save the whales vegan because everything else is factory farmed, chemical laden, horse meat infected rubbish that give them the cancers and the autisms. They also like to ignore the fact their organic cucumber is just a normal cucumber that has had the price jacked up on it.
Put simply, they have an irrational fear of non-descript chemicals (not anything specific, its just the word "chemical") but there wont be an ethical debate from this crowd because they never let a little hypocrisy get in the way (or a lot of it either)
The objective data is way against you. You might be OK to drive
There is no might about it.
I've participated in a controlled experiment on drink driving, we took a series of challenges (parallel parking, accelerating and stopping as well as following instructions on lane selection) on a test track (meaning a large skid pan marked with traffic cones). People showed a marked decrease in driving ability when they had enough to drink to blow 0.05 (Australia's legal limit), Myself included.
The strange thing is, I was one of two test candidates to have a higher score drunk than the sober median score... Meaning I'm a better drunk driver than half of the people tested sober (Sample size was 40). Other interesting fact was manual drivers consistently scored higher in both tests. That being said, I'd never drive drunk because as the tests showed, it did severely impact my driving ability.
If you want two glasses of wine at dinner, fine.
It was also fun getting drunk for science. I had 2 full strength beers (330 ml, 5% ABV) and still didn't blow 0.05. Alcohol doesn't have a uniform effect on people, some will be under 0.05 after a glass of wine, others will be over. However, I'm also of the mind that if you're planning to drink, leave the car at home and take a taxi.
the answer is "Or if social media just brings the people that are stupid more out of the woodwork for the rest of us to see."
This.
Stupid has always existed. The difference is now recording and transmitting it is within the capabilities of stupid.
The real problem is, some people celebrate stupidity which gives the stupid their 15 minutes of fame which in turn encourages more stupidity. Even those who simply watch it are contributing to the problem.
It's not really a new concept either, see "Americas/Australias/Britains Stupidest Home Videos" that have been going on for decades but at least then they would filter the stupidest of the stupid, now anyone with a phone can upload their stupid video for all to see.
Also see: the Dunning-Kruger effect. People that stupid never realise how stupid they are.
Maybe Australia should just ban regional locks and require that digital goods be priced within say 5% of the US/EU price.
Well that would actually be downright illegal.
However, we've done the next best thing, grey importing is perfectly legal. This is why I buy most of my games and media from overseas. There are entire businesses like Kogan which are set up to drop ship items from other countries to Australian consumers and even brick and mortar retailers like JB Hi-Fi have gotten in on the game, bypassing local distributors and buying direct from China, Hong Kong, Japan and wherever else.
If you buy a radiator for a BWM in from BMW Australia it'll cost $800+ before fitting. If you buy it from a US based Euro parts retailer, you're paying $350 incl shipping for the same part... And this is 100% legal.
Shoes, clothes, electronics, media, auto-parts, its no problem to buy it online and have it shipped to Oz. Of course local distributors hate it because Australia is no longer easy money but they only have themselves to blame.
Now if you've chosen to lock yourself into Apple's ecosystem, well that's your own fault. As an Australian that wasn't that dumb, I'm going to import a German word: Schadenfreude.
You're so obviously biased. Now that Abbott is gone, do you realise that the mastermind behind this policy is in charge! After all Turnbull was communications minister up until a month ago, this is his policy!
This.
As well as the mastermind behind killing the NBN (RIP NBN).
The problem is, replacing Abbott with Turnbull is just putting a new coat of paint on a rotting, termite infested house. We've still got Bernardi, Brandis, Abetz and the rest of the miscreants. The sickness in the LNP is at its core. Putting a new frontman there isn't going to change that.
For the Americans playing along at home, the Prime Minister does not have any real power. They're a figurehead meant to keep the party together (or to cop the blame when things go pair shaped), the PM cannot do anything without the support of parliament. This is why in Australia we don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for parties and individual members and also why parties can change leaders in the middle of a term. It is the party who wields the true power in Parliament. The only ones who voted for Malcolm Turnbull are ones who are registered to vote in the electorate of Wentworth.
Bottom line is, there's bipartisan support in parliament, so the public literally have no say on the issue.
That isn't true.
We dont operate on a strict two party system like the US does. All we need to do is get enough votes for the minor parties that oppose it (Primarily the Greens) in order for the major parties to be dependent on them. Things like this will be thrown to the wayside in order to secure minor party support on major policies. Also, don't vote Lib, the Labor party's backbench at least have a history of rebelling against things like this which is why Conroy's filter never came to fruition.
However what will happen and is happening here is resistance from ISPs. This data retention thing is going to cost them a lot of money and they'll be damned if its coming out of their bottom line and if they're going to pass it on to customers (things in Oz are expensive enough as they are so it's a lose/lose scenario for ISPs). So what will happen is: Government: Erm... You're not ready for our spying program. ISPs: Well you see it's going to cost money. Government: So what? ISPs: So here's the invoice for several million dollars per year... each. Government: We're not paying that. We've made it a law. ISPs: If we're going to spend money, it'll be on advertisements against your political party. Government: And... ISPs: And remember when the Mining industry did this to the other party. Government:... ISPs: Election is in less than 18 months Mal.
I dont trust ISP's like TPG, Optarse, Hellstra and so on to do the right thing by their customers... But I can count on them to do the right thing for their bottom line.
As you said, Coca-Cola has doubled down on advertising full-sugar soda, as soda consumption has been falling. Pepsi instead followed demand, marketing bottled water, tea, Gatorade, nutrition bars, etc.
Coke sells more soda, but that's a declining market. Pepsi is ahead in the healthier options which have seen increasing sales.
Hate to be the one to break this to you but bottled tea, Gatorade, so-called nutrition bars often have as much sugar in them as soda. Bottled tea is particularly bad (and tastes terrible to a decent pot of tea).
These drinks are advertised as "healthy" because there's no laws against deceptive advertising in the US.
You either have no children, or are in the 1% (or, naturally, both).
And aren't Scottish either.
I dont have kids but I wouldn't even consider a $50 phone to be a "burner". $200 is a big enough decision that I'd need to sleep on it. If I can dissuade myself from buying it in 24 hours, I don't really need it.
Slashdot Mirror
or those ugly as sin Mercedes SUVs.
Rich people don't drive those. Same with BMW X5's, Range Rovers, Audi Q7's and Porsche Cayenne's.
These cars are for people who take on massive amounts of debt to look richer than they are.
People driving these cars WANT you to think they have money but they really dont.
Personally I drive a 15 year old modified Nissan 200sx (Silvia S15), it's worth about $13K but it looks and sounds the part because I want people to know I'm faster than them. Many a disappointed expensive SUV driver finds this out the hard way.
Someone else who is also a billionaire – they don't want anything from you!
Anyone who claims that has no understanding of the psychology of the majority of billionaires. See Carly Fiorina and her 'good friend' Steve Jobs for an example. If you're a billionaire, then other billionaires are the ones that have the most of what you value and therefore the best targets. Stealing from the poor is far more effort - you need to steal from loads of them.
In reality it's the opposite. Much easier to steal from poor people who don't track their money.
Take credit card fraud for example, you make much more by stealing $5 from 10000 cards than you do trying to steal $5000 from 10 cards. Banks will question transactions over a certain value where as a lot of people will never read their credit card statement and just have whatever the bank asks for automatically deducted.
Banks are also good at this, taking from everyone one low, low fee at a time (seriously, go look up how credit transactions work, count the number of times "fee" is mentioned, then as "who is paying for it").
I'm not.
Also I think you're seriously overestimating the number of people who require a lot of storage on their phones. I'd bet that the only reason that people get larger capacity phones is because they're offered to them at the same price with their contract.
Making a small capacity phone that is cheap is a very smart move by Google, there's a lot of people like me who aren't using much storage space on their phone because strangely enough, we're only using it as a communication device (odd concept, I know).
McAffee is ... using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.
What's wrong with that, other than your personal morals?
Forget morals, that is just a convenient excuse. For the most part it's jealousy. John McAfee spent a lot of time enjoying himself, the GP has not. Others enjoying life upsets insecure people, they expect everyone to be as miserable as they are.
The excuses they use are inconsequential, if you say that Colombians are happy (well they are) they'll instantly bring up drug wars and Pablo Escobar because they cant accept that someone living a different life, richer or poorer, can be happier than them. They have to say something, anything to bring them down.
I really couldn't care less about the number of prostitutes McAfee has been with. Personally I wish him well in his campaign but I think both me and John McAfee know his chances of election.
This crowd doesn't block ads because they believe they dont need to.
Advertisers love this crowd because their false sense of security makes them the most susceptible. Advertising affects their decisions, they'll be stratigh down to McDonalds(TM) to get a refreshing Coke(R) as fast as anyone. Advertising affects everyone and to believe you're immune to it is foolish.
I block ads because they DO affect me. This ranges from annoyance to ways I cant consciously perceive (at least easily) and I simply do not like it.
That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. Advertisers have dug their own graves. They were too used to having a captive audience that couldn't do anything like they did with traditional media (print, radio and television). They thought they could get away with anything when we went online but failed to realise that now the recipient now has the ability to control what they see and the advertising industry is not in a hurry to adapt.
It was with puzzlement that I first learned that Americans didn't teach celestial navigation to its officers. It's not that celestial navigation by itself is really all that necessary, because yes, even without it, there are other methods. But the training of it produces officers that have a better understanding of when their machines are lying to them. It, and all the related skills you need to learn to make it work, gives more useful things in your toolbox to draw from. Because I will tell you from experience, it is not a matter of if a GPS will give you a wrong answer. It's a matter of when.
This,
Its not about teaching them how to use a sextant, rather it's about teaching them how to think for them selves.
There will be times where their only navigational aids will be basic, magnetic compass and the old MK I human eyeball. In peace time as well as wartime (although in wartime, it'll be a lot more common).
This is why the European system, the bloated, expensive and over engineered Galileo (GNSS) operates on it's own frequency as well as that used by GPS and GLONAS (Russia). You can block Galileo without blocking your own system.
I live in Chiang Mai Thailand. I suggest if you really really like the idea of a 'gig economy' then move here for a few months and see how that idea works out in real life. I don't think you'll care for it much as only a few live a decent lifestyle.
If Chaing Mai isn't enough, move down to Phuket, Thailand where the Tuk Tuk drivers are more organised and will beat up anyone violating their turf or trying to run a municipal bus.
Then you'll fall completely out of love with the idea of Uber.
The west experience taxi wars long ago, thats why we regulated them generations ago. If you want to know what it's like without regulations and controls, just head to somewhere like Thailand.
And what stops you from taking a taxi to get home if Uber is too costly?
The irrational hate of the taxi industry.
Yep, this is pretty much the only thing Uber has going in their favour.
People who hate the taxi industry need to believe in Uber. The problem is Uber's business model is unsustainable. They're already having to claw back the drivers cut because they're losing money hand over fist. This means the list of starry-eyed suckers... Erm... I mean drivers is reducing as it costs real money to run a car for commercial purposes (and I bet people think that running a taxi for 12 hours a day is as cheap as driving their runabout for 20 minutes a day). Ironically, this means you'll end up with the most desperate and unemployable, all the things Uberista's complain about the Taxi industry. Drivers that don't speak English, don't wash, cars that are in poor states of cleanliness and repair (did I get that right, I haven't read the Uber Shill handbook) are going to happen to Uber. "But that's the same as a taxi" I hear the Uber Shill nasally decry, well having lived in places with no taxi regulations where anyone can be a taxi driver... The difference is that a licensed and regulated taxi driver is far less likely to shove a gun in your face whilst stinking of whiskey (which in Thailand is actually made from cane sugar, so it's really Rum). Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat. Thats why western nations implemented taxi regulations many generations ago when jitney drivers would beat each other up in front of customers to protect their turf.
So they dont take money from Uber in exchange for providing services as dictated by Uber?
Could have fooled me.
Regardless of what Uber likes to say, the people that work for Uber are employees, even as casuals and subcontractors they still have rights.
However this is a good demonstration why Uber is a self correcting problem and why you shouldn't get attached to them. Uber is losing money hand over fist WHILST they have lower costs because they're ignoring the rules that other transport providers have to follow. In order for Uber to make money they have to give the employees a smaller cut. As they have to be cheaper than legitimate, insured taxi companies this means that the amount drivers get is already small and making it smaller means that only the most desperate will be willing to work for Uber (and don't even contemplate how badly the vehicle is repaired because that comes out of the drivers diminishing cut).
Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!)
.
The problem isn't that modern whitegoods aren't repairable, the problem is the spirit of MacGyver has left our society.
People dont consider how to fix things. When the bulb in a lamp goes it's time to get a new lamp. You cant blame the market to reacting and catering for laziness.
That being said, whitegoods are lasting much longer these days as well as being much cheaper. The last two things that broke on me were the fault of people (damaged whilst moving).
only in america, when somebody promises you something for nothing
Since when is a ~$2,000 contract "nothing"???
Over 2 years that's $83 per month and most of that is paying for the handset.
The thing about people who think their big contributors is that they actually aren't. Your $83 per month is nothing to a multi-billion dollar business in an industry with extremely high barriers to entry (and forget mentioning regulation, they're insignificant. The major barrier is the cost of infrastructure when it comes to the telecommunications industry). Industries like telecommunications aren't worried about losing one customer, mainly because they know that there's someone from a rival telco who has the exact same idea.
You've reminded me of an event I witnessed in a liquor store a few months back. This guy in an average looking suit was berating the only clerk because he wouldn't carry a carton of beer out of the cool room for him. The guy certainly didn't look disabled and there was no-one else to man the counter. The argument boiled down to the fact the guy just didn't want to carry his own stuff and he was using every arrogant trick in the book. The old "I pay you wages", "I earn x hundred thousand a year", "I'm important", "I'm going to get you fired" and all the other tropes people with little man syndrome love to use. Then a old bloke in jeans and a jumper walks up to him and says "sunshine, you're no-one" and hands him a business card before taking his wine to the checkout. The arrogant guy was livid, threw the card to the ground and stormed out.
I picked up the business card, it was a card from a mining giant and said "Director". The guy in an unassuming outfit buying wine was one of the richest people in Perth. I had to shake his hand and tell him he was a great bloke.
Sorry for the Grandpa Simpson story (yes, I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time), but its a good lesson that you should never think you're too important and being humble and polite is more likely to get you what you want.
Once again Jeremy, James and Richard from old new Top Gear were way ahead of you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What you need is a large GPS device that only has 4 buttons, Home, Bingo, Shops and Little Jimmy's House. It would also need to randomly point out random local facts like "That place was bombed during the war you know" as you drive by points of interest.
Given the Chevrolet side saddle gas tanks imbroglio, the Ford Pinto, and the Toyota floor mat malfunction,
I'd say Volkswagon can count on the short term memory of the buying public.
Yep, people are still buying automatic VW's after years of DSG failures. They're very quick to forget.
However Volkswagen wont get away with this unscathed. I'll put good money on the fact VAG will need to sell off a few of their non core brands to raise enough capital to pay fines and perform whatever pithy attempt at fixing the issue they try. This means that Bugatti will go, Bentley (I think another large German might like this to compete with Mercedes/Rolls, either that or Tata to complement their ownership of Jaguar/Land Rover), Lamborghini would be a huge capital raise as Lambo is actually profitable and Porsche will take a controlling stake in the company with Porsche boss Mueller at the helm.
VW will get cut down to the core brands of Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda and SEAT as all of these manufacturers basically make the same car (A VW Golf is an Audi A3, SEAT Leon and Skoda Octavia).
In the short term as damage control, VAG will probably try to bring the relatively unknown Euro brands like Skoda and SEAT to the US or at least out of obscurity to increase sales. People who might balk at a VW Golf may very well buy a SEAT Leon after a clever marketing campaign.
So the problem is two-fold: 1) Don't keep a round chambered unless you feel the need to discharge the weapon is imminent. 2) If you have children, select a gun that has actual safety mechanisms (you know, a "safety") that enhances safety and prevents accidental discharges or operation by children.
The problem is, this completely destroys the already flaky "guns defend people" argument.
Lets assume the criminal didn't get the drop on you and you've had time to get your firearm out of your purse (which is pretty unlikely to begin with) are they just going to stand there whilst you check the safety and load a round?
At this point you realise:
1) if you have easy access to guns, so does the crim.
2) the crim has the element of surprise.
3) the crim is not going to wait as you say "excuse me whilst I just take out my gun, check the safety and load a round".
After coming to the simple realisation that in any armed conflict, you are at the disadvantage you then start to ask, if guns are going to be useless in an emergency, why am I not keeping it unloaded and secure in a safe at my home?
Then begins the transition from gun nut to sensible person.
Because you can run from a knife. This stupid strawman is always brought out when people talk about guns.
Not only that, you can fight off a knife attacker with minimal injuries.
The reason crims in Australia are complete cowards is because they know that they might be brave or drunk enough to fight back if they're only armed with a knife. So they only attack in gangs, 5 to 1 in dark alleys. I only know one person who has been mugged in Australia, they did it by hitting her over the back of the head with something and running off with her purse. Just a few days ago in my city, a robber armed with a knife was tackled by staff at a local restaurant and held for police.
Welcome to Australia, where your waiter takes down a knife wielding meth heads with their bare hands, we don't expect a tip, but it's always appreciated.
We have drawer locks for this.
Just about every electrical outlet is now too small for a toddler to stick things into, even the US Type B socket. We have also mandated RCD's (Residual Current Devcies) to prevent accidental electrocution.
If you need a law for this, you're seriously broken.
See above.
However what measures do we take to prevent kids from getting access to firearms? In Australia we have to keep them unloaded and locked up when not in use which is a very sensible thing as we don't have daily toddler shootings (accidental or otherwise) however in the US people seem fit to keep guns loaded in their purse.
https://www.rt.com/usa/266899-ohio-child-shoots-himself/
I'm also willing to bet the gun wasn't safetied either.
Incidents like this are commonplace in the US and not commonplace in other developed countries because of the insane attitude Americans have towards guns. You shouldn't need to carry guns around for defence, if you do your society is broken. You should have to take responsibility for keeping dangerous objects and locations secure. People should have to be trained and licensed in the operation of a firearm (like we are with cars, which are less dangerous considering their frequency of use). Until this attitude changes, you'll continue to have toddler shootings and mass shootings on a regular basis and gun controls will happen as a natural result of this change in attitude.
They will if they are the sort who abstain from meat due to ethical considerations (the "fish are friends, not food" crowd). Your chemic shitstorm isn't alive so there's no ethical debate about eating them.
The probelm is that the "fish are friends" crowd are also the "chemicals are bad m'kay" crowd. They eat organic, fair trade, ethically cultivated, save the whales vegan because everything else is factory farmed, chemical laden, horse meat infected rubbish that give them the cancers and the autisms. They also like to ignore the fact their organic cucumber is just a normal cucumber that has had the price jacked up on it.
Put simply, they have an irrational fear of non-descript chemicals (not anything specific, its just the word "chemical") but there wont be an ethical debate from this crowd because they never let a little hypocrisy get in the way (or a lot of it either)
Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.
In other words, have you tried removing the nut behind the wheel.
There is no might about it.
I've participated in a controlled experiment on drink driving, we took a series of challenges (parallel parking, accelerating and stopping as well as following instructions on lane selection) on a test track (meaning a large skid pan marked with traffic cones). People showed a marked decrease in driving ability when they had enough to drink to blow 0.05 (Australia's legal limit), Myself included.
The strange thing is, I was one of two test candidates to have a higher score drunk than the sober median score... Meaning I'm a better drunk driver than half of the people tested sober (Sample size was 40). Other interesting fact was manual drivers consistently scored higher in both tests. That being said, I'd never drive drunk because as the tests showed, it did severely impact my driving ability.
the answer is "Or if social media just brings the people that are stupid more out of the woodwork for the rest of us to see."
This.
Stupid has always existed. The difference is now recording and transmitting it is within the capabilities of stupid.
The real problem is, some people celebrate stupidity which gives the stupid their 15 minutes of fame which in turn encourages more stupidity. Even those who simply watch it are contributing to the problem.
It's not really a new concept either, see "Americas/Australias/Britains Stupidest Home Videos" that have been going on for decades but at least then they would filter the stupidest of the stupid, now anyone with a phone can upload their stupid video for all to see.
Also see: the Dunning-Kruger effect. People that stupid never realise how stupid they are.
Well that would actually be downright illegal.
However, we've done the next best thing, grey importing is perfectly legal. This is why I buy most of my games and media from overseas. There are entire businesses like Kogan which are set up to drop ship items from other countries to Australian consumers and even brick and mortar retailers like JB Hi-Fi have gotten in on the game, bypassing local distributors and buying direct from China, Hong Kong, Japan and wherever else.
If you buy a radiator for a BWM in from BMW Australia it'll cost $800+ before fitting. If you buy it from a US based Euro parts retailer, you're paying $350 incl shipping for the same part... And this is 100% legal.
Shoes, clothes, electronics, media, auto-parts, its no problem to buy it online and have it shipped to Oz. Of course local distributors hate it because Australia is no longer easy money but they only have themselves to blame.
Now if you've chosen to lock yourself into Apple's ecosystem, well that's your own fault. As an Australian that wasn't that dumb, I'm going to import a German word: Schadenfreude.
This.
As well as the mastermind behind killing the NBN (RIP NBN).
The problem is, replacing Abbott with Turnbull is just putting a new coat of paint on a rotting, termite infested house. We've still got Bernardi, Brandis, Abetz and the rest of the miscreants. The sickness in the LNP is at its core. Putting a new frontman there isn't going to change that.
For the Americans playing along at home, the Prime Minister does not have any real power. They're a figurehead meant to keep the party together (or to cop the blame when things go pair shaped), the PM cannot do anything without the support of parliament. This is why in Australia we don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for parties and individual members and also why parties can change leaders in the middle of a term. It is the party who wields the true power in Parliament. The only ones who voted for Malcolm Turnbull are ones who are registered to vote in the electorate of Wentworth.
Bottom line is, there's bipartisan support in parliament, so the public literally have no say on the issue.
That isn't true.
...
We dont operate on a strict two party system like the US does. All we need to do is get enough votes for the minor parties that oppose it (Primarily the Greens) in order for the major parties to be dependent on them. Things like this will be thrown to the wayside in order to secure minor party support on major policies. Also, don't vote Lib, the Labor party's backbench at least have a history of rebelling against things like this which is why Conroy's filter never came to fruition.
However what will happen and is happening here is resistance from ISPs. This data retention thing is going to cost them a lot of money and they'll be damned if its coming out of their bottom line and if they're going to pass it on to customers (things in Oz are expensive enough as they are so it's a lose/lose scenario for ISPs). So what will happen is:
Government: Erm... You're not ready for our spying program.
ISPs: Well you see it's going to cost money.
Government: So what?
ISPs: So here's the invoice for several million dollars per year... each.
Government: We're not paying that. We've made it a law.
ISPs: If we're going to spend money, it'll be on advertisements against your political party.
Government: And...
ISPs: And remember when the Mining industry did this to the other party.
Government:
ISPs: Election is in less than 18 months Mal.
I dont trust ISP's like TPG, Optarse, Hellstra and so on to do the right thing by their customers... But I can count on them to do the right thing for their bottom line.
As you said, Coca-Cola has doubled down on advertising full-sugar soda, as soda consumption has been falling. Pepsi instead followed demand, marketing bottled water, tea, Gatorade, nutrition bars, etc.
Coke sells more soda, but that's a declining market. Pepsi is ahead in the healthier options which have seen increasing sales.
Hate to be the one to break this to you but bottled tea, Gatorade, so-called nutrition bars often have as much sugar in them as soda. Bottled tea is particularly bad (and tastes terrible to a decent pot of tea).
These drinks are advertised as "healthy" because there's no laws against deceptive advertising in the US.
You either have no children, or are in the 1% (or, naturally, both).
And aren't Scottish either.
I dont have kids but I wouldn't even consider a $50 phone to be a "burner". $200 is a big enough decision that I'd need to sleep on it. If I can dissuade myself from buying it in 24 hours, I don't really need it.