Do you have anything more than the GRUB story to back this opinion up?
Oh, no, the actual Linux users can fill in that gap better than I can.
See your problem doesn't happen much
Design based around the idea that user needs are "just another inconvenience"? Oh, with Linux that happens quite a bit.
It's easy to say that things should be better, especially when you don't understand how they work.
No, I'm afraid that trick doesn't work on me. I have suggested a better way, based on only things I can observe. Specifically: for my install, I could have put grub on the hard drive that had Linux instead of wiping the existing MBR. That way, when I want to load Ubuntu, I just tell the computer to boot from that drive.
A combined LiveCD and Install CD is a great feature (I wish MS and Apple had them [I haven't tried Vista or Tiger yet, so they might have it]). It wasn't added cause some guy complained about the bootloader fucking him over.
Really? Then why was it added?
Complaining about something that has been fixed allows people to dismiss your argument easier.
No, the Ubuntu design philosophy (the *real* one, not the one they falsely claim to have) most certainly has not been fixed.
Unnecessary?!? Did you want Linux to modify WINDOWS bootloader?
See above. It was unnecessary to change the main hard drive's MBR.
And how do you know that you made no error?
Because I followed the instructions. (Though apparently, following Ubuntu instructions counts as an error, but whatever.)
From what you've said, no one has correctly diagnosed the problem
No, I never said that. The problem has since been correctly diagnosed. The GRUB error was due to the hard drive I put Ubuntu on, being too large (over 137 gig), which matched the error message. So in a sense, the error is "on my end" -- the hard drive wasn't "right". But there was no instruction that said, "by the way, if your hard drive larger than [], do this []." So, I don't see what error I made.
But you still believe Ubuntu design is focused on user needs, right?
See, tech support is a greedy algorithm, you create a list of potential problems and start with the most likely proportionate to how simply they can be fixed.
Uh huh. And see, GRUB error 25 would be the first step, since that was the error message and I tried all the other simple stuff. The Ubuntu forum instead thought that using a Live or Windows CD was the simplest. They were wrong, and I was right. I did not have a Live/Windows CD. (Hm, wonder why that is?) I did not have a CD burner. (Because I installed the damn OS.)
Even still, I think you had a command prompt on the install CD (but I could be mistaken), so you could have mounted the Linux partition (if you couldn't then we've found the cause of your problems) and used wget and mkisofs to make a LiveCD
You're the first person to ever suggest that.
Your brother put Windows on it, and you are presumably happy.
No, I'm not happy that the Linux community botched my next-best alternative to Windows.
But someone, who doesn't know enough to Linux working isn't exactly a prime candidate to debate the problems in Linux
No, the fact that I walked the path that potential converts would use, personally experienced that problem, and saw a plainly obvious way around that problem qualifies me sufficiently.
Yes, you couldn't do it, but why do you think you represent any part of the population?
I don't. I'm not. Rather, I'm *more* computer-savvy than the mouth-breathers you want to bring on board. That's not good.
The story ends with your brother putting Windows on your machine. So I ask, have you installed and setup Windows or OS X? Yes or No. It is a simple question, but you've been vague about it (for whatever reason).
No, I haven't been vague about it, you just haven't ask
I had a problem with IRQs under Windows... In 1995 using Windows 3.1. I don't talk about it, and even if I did it would be wrong of me not to point out that it is a problem with a past version that was fixed in the next revision. (Read this point again, I'll be referring to it a lot)
I don't think your problem is analagous (synonymous). Your problem with IRQs was not a case where you were unnecessarily exposed to the risk of being locked out of your computer due to IRQ problems, without being informed of the the alternatives to mitigate this risk.
I have made very clear in the past that my complaint is *not* about this or that error here or there. I have specifically said that GRUB failure was not what ticked me off. The reason I bring up my experience in the Ubuntu threads is not to get that one specific mistake fixed, but because the error I did run into was symptomatic of very, very poor design that completely ignores the needs of new users. You cannot have the problem I did because of a simple programming oversight. It results from ignoring user needs all the way through.
Of course that specific problem has been fixed. But as long as the Linux community compartmentalizes these huge problems as just something to paper over when enough people gripe about it, rather than making a serious attempt at design from the ground up, it will never get the market share it wants. That is the reason I continue to bring this up, and the point is relevant even if my specific problem was fixed.
I appear to be having an open discussion with you right now, despite my lack of karma.
Sure, because you didn't just get 14 responses, most of which had huge errors in them, while you were limited to two (or zero!) posts per day. You know, like my former incarnation did after saying something unpopular.
In your case, people aren't disagreeing with your opinion.
Yes, they are.
BTW, I don't disagree with the fact that you fucked up your computer using Ubuntu.
Except it's not a fact. *I* made no error. I followed the install instructions precisely. And it was because I listened to the install instructions -- i.e. HIGHLY RECOMMENDING a risky, unnecessary MBR purge -- that I had problems in the first place. I took several un-recommended precautions. What I did not do was follow the *right* un-recommended, but absolutely vital precautions. And that's not an error on my part.
And of course, I do take responsibility for *trusting* the instructions in the first place. But please remember, "You failed because you actually read the instructions" is not a very strong defense.
I'm AC, so what?
So these posts aren't going into your history on the Slashdot user name that you use when you're not trolling. So you don't have to stand behind those posts when speaking from your serious account.
*cough* So you do operate that way. You just don't see yourself as a troll.
Operate what way? Over 90% of my comments have nothing to do with Linux. The ones that do, are because I have something relevant to add, or because someone claimed something that blatantly contradicted my direct experience with it.
I agree, it would be nice to have the Karma modifer all the time. It would be nice if people didn't use modding down to mean "I disagree". But as long a they do, I have to space my criticisms far enough apart so that my karma isn't destroyed.
That sure fosters open discussion, eh?
Arguing the faults of Linux that were resolved a year ago as valid points makes people at the very least question your motives.
They weren't "resolved". Half the people walk away falsely thinking the Live CD at the time was the same as the install CD, or that my hard drive had a hardware problem. Neither is true.
You know, if you made valid points against Ubuntu
I *have* made valid points against Ubuntu. Several people admit this each time I bring it up.
You could do a lot more damage if your arguments were credible. But you don't really want that, do you?
No, I don't want to "do damage", except to egos. I want to wake Linux fanboys from their blissful ignorance. I don't mind if they're content with its market share. I don't mind if they're doing their best to increase its market share yet are frustrated it's not catching on. But when they make pitiful efforts to make it usable to more people, and still wonder why it has low market share, *then* I have to explain what's wrong with that picture.
If I were to classify you, I would categorize your behaviour as being synonymous with a dumped 15-year-old ex-girlfriend who won't stop calling at 2 AM.
If I were to classify you, I would categorize your behavior as being synonymous with (I think you mean "analagous to", but I'm mocking you here) someone who considers calling another's behavior "synonymous with a dumped 15-year-old ex-girlfriend who won't stop calling at 2 AM" to be a valid argument.
And my advice would be the same, "Get over it!"
Sure, I have gotten over it. But when people lie, I will correct them.
That is why you are a troll.
As differentiated, of course, from all those non-trolls that post AC.
Could you give me the username of a troll operating this way?
To be honest, I wouldn't consider someone who makes valuable comments on every topic except the few ones about Ubuntu, to be a troll. (I consider my comments about Ubuntu equally valuable as my other ones, for the record, but I'm just talking about a worst-case.)
I actually think it would be a good idea just to make them cheap and sell to whoever wants one. It reminds me of this wealthy guy back in the 30's named Roger Enright. See, the government was going to build a housing project and rent out the rooms really cheap to the poor. Well, turned out, some nutjob blew up the place during construction so Enright swooped in and bought the land from the government and had the buildings re-constructed with this efficient design so he could also rent it out cheap. But unlike the government, he'd rent to anyone, not just the poor, and he did it at a profit. The irony is, Enright's buildings were truer to the design of the original architect of the housing project.
It doesn't matter if it lives up to its claim or not, as long as it helps the average user get into Linux. Any 'easy' distro is welcome to join the fray.
That's a lie.
Face it, geeks don't *want* the unwashed mouth-breathers to use Linux. It's *their* OS. You have to *earn* your right to use it. They ridicule any attempt to make it easy to switch. Their idea of user-friendly design is demanding that everyone wipe their MBR on install whether or not it's necessary, and whether or not they have the appropriate tools to fix it if something goes wrong. They think that loading Linux as a secondary OS by hitting F8 at startup is "too burdensome", while risking locking yourself out of your computer is no big deal. No, I'm not kidding.
Let's not forget, Ubuntu was considered "easy" for the new user. Time of merging Live and install CDs: mid-'06. Time of first cutesy name for a version: a long time before that.
Well, it's probably most effective at that, but I don't see how the showroom's setup is any less suited for that kind of browsing. It just adds salespeople who aren't afraid to say, "yeah, you'll probably never use this... "
1) I never predicated any suggestion on anything being free, including information. The idea is that you are paying directly for the assistance in finding what you want, not the good you finally decide on, thus removing the conflicts of interest and getting the "best of both worlds".
2) I didn't ask for anyone's sympathy. I suggested an idea for a new kind of store and invited opinion on its merit.
3) My history on other forums has nothing to do with the idea.
While your model works great for someone who knows what they're looking for, my guess is that these people are probably in the minority except when it comes to major purchases. I think that this is a significant part of the reason why the WalMart and Target type stores are so effective - you can go in for one thing and come out with several. This would be much less likely under your model.
Huh? The entire point of the store I proposed is so that you can learn what it is you really want -- i.e., you don't know what you're looking for, or know only in vague terms, and then people can help you find what your looking for without pressuring you to buy too much.
Oh, I definitely think people would pay a lot for something like this:
-having a real human hold their hand through the process of understanding what they really need -no pressure to buy anything -- seriously -no guilt about "using" them to get information, since the "score is settled" in terms of paying for the service that you really need -having someone show them *how* to get the most use out of it, without buying a specific contract for that
My parents, and people their age, are always telling me about how they increasingly feel lost amid new technology, and have to bug younger people they know (who don't always like guiding them through the process). I know that if I just gave my parents Kinetic and an EyeToy to play, they wouldn't have bothered, but since I patiently guided them through the process of turning the system on and playing, they're hooked. So, it's great to have someone who can show you how to really get the most of out your purchase.
The question of whether they'd pay enough for this to be profitable is, of course, tougher. At least with the co-op method you can save a lot by making your labor mostly people who volunteer (at doing something they love!) in order to get a discount on an otherwise expensive membership fee. Say, $500 per month, OR ($50 + 16 hours) per month. You could also probably get manufacturers to let you use the stuff for free once the store becomes a "must have" for customers to consider your product.
Here's an idea for them. Turn their lobbying power on Congress to get national health insurance. Then they can get out of their obligations.
and a lot of people say the same thing, casually assuming the last sentence follows. But I don't see it. National health insurance does not, by itself, void GM's contract with the union. You would have to have NHI *and* a separate act of Congress (which would be very unusual) to void that contract.
Anyway, I don't disagree that GM and Ford have produced poor cars (and run their plants inefficiently), I just think that that problem is itself ultimately derivative of legacy costs.
Partially right. To be as succinct as possible (please read to the end to make sure I don't address the response you have in mind):
1) Yes, pension/health care obligations cause bad cars. When you have a large, unproductive expense [wait, wait, wait to the end], that your competitors do not have, your best people will be bid away to work for them. 2) Yes, GM should have (Heaven forbid!) funded the obligations in advance, unlike, say, Social Security. 3) On the other hand, when it's the union that asked for the benefit in the first place, don't they have some kind of obligation to educate themselves on where the money is coming from? A pension is deferred compensation. Workers are senior to bondholders in who gets paid first. (and bondholders are in turn senior to stockholders) So, credit agencies should have counted the obligations as debt senior to GM bonds. The union should have made sure the pension obligations were rated along with the rest of GM's debt, but like today's SS proponents, they have a hard time understanding that a promise to pay a pension *is* a debt.
The whole wretched scheme was based on the fantasy that GM would remain perpetually more profitable than other companies so they could fund legacy obligations. Management took advantage of unions' incompetence, but the reverse happened too!
-It's not necessarily non-profit. -It's not limited to electronics. -It doesn't actually sell you the stuff. -It doesn't warehouse the stuff on-site. -You must have a membership or pay a cover to get in, not merely to get the discounts.
If someone's doing what I suggested already, I'm interested, but please make sure you understand the idea first.
Yes, I know. The point is so that you can talk to a real human in person, and see the items in person, so as to supplement those other resources.
Much as it may shock you, some people aren't adept at using Wikipedia and google, some people like talking in person, some people are uncomfortable about spending a lot before they can see it in person, and some people -- okay, most people -- would benefit from in person assistance on using technology.
I recently suggested a solution to this dilemma based on someone's remark on that topic.
Basically, someone should set up "stores" that don't make money on sales at all, but essentially just rent you access to the showroom so you can figure out what you need (and then perhaps rate the people there based on how informative they are -- like Slashdot) and then find the cheapest place online to get it (either using their computers there or just go home having a better idea of what you need). They would have no qualms about telling you, "ah, you don't need this stuff".
Depending on the money needed to make it work, you could either run them for-profit or as a co-op where your "membership fee" is all or partly your service of working there part-time in a department you're already knowledgeable about. You help people find what computer they should get, and in return, old folks there teach you what gardening equipment you should get (for example).
I agree with this proposal. They need to double -- perhaps, triple -- check to make sure the code works as intended.
But I also think CA has been otherwise prudent. For example, using Diebold instead of volunteer open source code. I mean, how can they afford all the volunteer labor?
Slashdot Mirror
Still, it would be nice if we could mod stories up or down.
"Wii rocks, PS3 sucks; posted by Zonk" -- That'll be a redundant!
Why should my tax dollars go to support robots?
Once the AI is good enough, they'll just kill us anyway.
Sorry, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time :-P
Do you have anything more than the GRUB story to back this opinion up?
Oh, no, the actual Linux users can fill in that gap better than I can.
See your problem doesn't happen much
Design based around the idea that user needs are "just another inconvenience"? Oh, with Linux that happens quite a bit.
It's easy to say that things should be better, especially when you don't understand how they work.
No, I'm afraid that trick doesn't work on me. I have suggested a better way, based on only things I can observe. Specifically: for my install, I could have put grub on the hard drive that had Linux instead of wiping the existing MBR. That way, when I want to load Ubuntu, I just tell the computer to boot from that drive.
A combined LiveCD and Install CD is a great feature (I wish MS and Apple had them [I haven't tried Vista or Tiger yet, so they might have it]). It wasn't added cause some guy complained about the bootloader fucking him over.
Really? Then why was it added?
Complaining about something that has been fixed allows people to dismiss your argument easier.
No, the Ubuntu design philosophy (the *real* one, not the one they falsely claim to have) most certainly has not been fixed.
Unnecessary?!? Did you want Linux to modify WINDOWS bootloader?
See above. It was unnecessary to change the main hard drive's MBR.
And how do you know that you made no error?
Because I followed the instructions. (Though apparently, following Ubuntu instructions counts as an error, but whatever.)
From what you've said, no one has correctly diagnosed the problem
No, I never said that. The problem has since been correctly diagnosed. The GRUB error was due to the hard drive I put Ubuntu on, being too large (over 137 gig), which matched the error message. So in a sense, the error is "on my end" -- the hard drive wasn't "right". But there was no instruction that said, "by the way, if your hard drive larger than [], do this []." So, I don't see what error I made.
But you still believe Ubuntu design is focused on user needs, right?
See, tech support is a greedy algorithm, you create a list of potential problems and start with the most likely proportionate to how simply they can be fixed.
Uh huh. And see, GRUB error 25 would be the first step, since that was the error message and I tried all the other simple stuff. The Ubuntu forum instead thought that using a Live or Windows CD was the simplest. They were wrong, and I was right. I did not have a Live/Windows CD. (Hm, wonder why that is?) I did not have a CD burner. (Because I installed the damn OS.)
Even still, I think you had a command prompt on the install CD (but I could be mistaken), so you could have mounted the Linux partition (if you couldn't then we've found the cause of your problems) and used wget and mkisofs to make a LiveCD
You're the first person to ever suggest that.
Your brother put Windows on it, and you are presumably happy.
No, I'm not happy that the Linux community botched my next-best alternative to Windows.
But someone, who doesn't know enough to Linux working isn't exactly a prime candidate to debate the problems in Linux
No, the fact that I walked the path that potential converts would use, personally experienced that problem, and saw a plainly obvious way around that problem qualifies me sufficiently.
Yes, you couldn't do it, but why do you think you represent any part of the population?
I don't. I'm not. Rather, I'm *more* computer-savvy than the mouth-breathers you want to bring on board. That's not good.
The story ends with your brother putting Windows on your machine. So I ask, have you installed and setup Windows or OS X? Yes or No. It is a simple question, but you've been vague about it (for whatever reason).
No, I haven't been vague about it, you just haven't ask
I had a problem with IRQs under Windows... In 1995 using Windows 3.1. I don't talk about it, and even if I did it would be wrong of me not to point out that it is a problem with a past version that was fixed in the next revision. (Read this point again, I'll be referring to it a lot)
I don't think your problem is analagous (synonymous). Your problem with IRQs was not a case where you were unnecessarily exposed to the risk of being locked out of your computer due to IRQ problems, without being informed of the the alternatives to mitigate this risk.
I have made very clear in the past that my complaint is *not* about this or that error here or there. I have specifically said that GRUB failure was not what ticked me off. The reason I bring up my experience in the Ubuntu threads is not to get that one specific mistake fixed, but because the error I did run into was symptomatic of very, very poor design that completely ignores the needs of new users. You cannot have the problem I did because of a simple programming oversight. It results from ignoring user needs all the way through.
Of course that specific problem has been fixed. But as long as the Linux community compartmentalizes these huge problems as just something to paper over when enough people gripe about it, rather than making a serious attempt at design from the ground up, it will never get the market share it wants. That is the reason I continue to bring this up, and the point is relevant even if my specific problem was fixed.
I appear to be having an open discussion with you right now, despite my lack of karma.
Sure, because you didn't just get 14 responses, most of which had huge errors in them, while you were limited to two (or zero!) posts per day. You know, like my former incarnation did after saying something unpopular.
In your case, people aren't disagreeing with your opinion.
Yes, they are.
BTW, I don't disagree with the fact that you fucked up your computer using Ubuntu.
Except it's not a fact. *I* made no error. I followed the install instructions precisely. And it was because I listened to the install instructions -- i.e. HIGHLY RECOMMENDING a risky, unnecessary MBR purge -- that I had problems in the first place. I took several un-recommended precautions. What I did not do was follow the *right* un-recommended, but absolutely vital precautions. And that's not an error on my part.
And of course, I do take responsibility for *trusting* the instructions in the first place. But please remember, "You failed because you actually read the instructions" is not a very strong defense.
I'm AC, so what?
So these posts aren't going into your history on the Slashdot user name that you use when you're not trolling. So you don't have to stand behind those posts when speaking from your serious account.
You know, like I'm doing right now.
*cough* So you do operate that way. You just don't see yourself as a troll.
Operate what way? Over 90% of my comments have nothing to do with Linux. The ones that do, are because I have something relevant to add, or because someone claimed something that blatantly contradicted my direct experience with it.
I agree, it would be nice to have the Karma modifer all the time. It would be nice if people didn't use modding down to mean "I disagree". But as long a they do, I have to space my criticisms far enough apart so that my karma isn't destroyed.
That sure fosters open discussion, eh?
Arguing the faults of Linux that were resolved a year ago as valid points makes people at the very least question your motives.
They weren't "resolved". Half the people walk away falsely thinking the Live CD at the time was the same as the install CD, or that my hard drive had a hardware problem. Neither is true.
You know, if you made valid points against Ubuntu
I *have* made valid points against Ubuntu. Several people admit this each time I bring it up.
You could do a lot more damage if your arguments were credible. But you don't really want that, do you?
No, I don't want to "do damage", except to egos. I want to wake Linux fanboys from their blissful ignorance. I don't mind if they're content with its market share. I don't mind if they're doing their best to increase its market share yet are frustrated it's not catching on. But when they make pitiful efforts to make it usable to more people, and still wonder why it has low market share, *then* I have to explain what's wrong with that picture.
If I were to classify you, I would categorize your behaviour as being synonymous with a dumped 15-year-old ex-girlfriend who won't stop calling at 2 AM.
If I were to classify you, I would categorize your behavior as being synonymous with (I think you mean "analagous to", but I'm mocking you here) someone who considers calling another's behavior "synonymous with a dumped 15-year-old ex-girlfriend who won't stop calling at 2 AM" to be a valid argument.
And my advice would be the same, "Get over it!"
Sure, I have gotten over it. But when people lie, I will correct them.
That is why you are a troll.
As differentiated, of course, from all those non-trolls that post AC.
Heh, I can see that, and agree, to my detriment. Basically, I don't mind living in cheap aparments.
:-/
:-P
I *do* mind living with people who can only afford a cheap apartment.
Btw, that anecdote was from a novel, not reality.
Could you give me the username of a troll operating this way?
To be honest, I wouldn't consider someone who makes valuable comments on every topic except the few ones about Ubuntu, to be a troll. (I consider my comments about Ubuntu equally valuable as my other ones, for the record, but I'm just talking about a worst-case.)
I actually think it would be a good idea just to make them cheap and sell to whoever wants one. It reminds me of this wealthy guy back in the 30's named Roger Enright. See, the government was going to build a housing project and rent out the rooms really cheap to the poor. Well, turned out, some nutjob blew up the place during construction so Enright swooped in and bought the land from the government and had the buildings re-constructed with this efficient design so he could also rent it out cheap. But unlike the government, he'd rent to anyone, not just the poor, and he did it at a profit. The irony is, Enright's buildings were truer to the design of the original architect of the housing project.
What about having one of those auctions like they did on the defunct Mercata.com, where the more people join, the lower the price goes?
If I'm a troll, why are about half my posts with a karma bonus?
Think about it.
It doesn't matter if it lives up to its claim or not, as long as it helps the average user get into Linux. Any 'easy' distro is welcome to join the fray.
That's a lie.
Face it, geeks don't *want* the unwashed mouth-breathers to use Linux. It's *their* OS. You have to *earn* your right to use it. They ridicule any attempt to make it easy to switch. Their idea of user-friendly design is demanding that everyone wipe their MBR on install whether or not it's necessary, and whether or not they have the appropriate tools to fix it if something goes wrong. They think that loading Linux as a secondary OS by hitting F8 at startup is "too burdensome", while risking locking yourself out of your computer is no big deal. No, I'm not kidding.
Let's not forget, Ubuntu was considered "easy" for the new user. Time of merging Live and install CDs: mid-'06. Time of first cutesy name for a version: a long time before that.
Well, it's probably most effective at that, but I don't see how the showroom's setup is any less suited for that kind of browsing. It just adds salespeople who aren't afraid to say, "yeah, you'll probably never use this ... "
I'd have more sympathy if you weren't so slow:
1) I never predicated any suggestion on anything being free, including information. The idea is that you are paying directly for the assistance in finding what you want, not the good you finally decide on, thus removing the conflicts of interest and getting the "best of both worlds".
2) I didn't ask for anyone's sympathy. I suggested an idea for a new kind of store and invited opinion on its merit.
3) My history on other forums has nothing to do with the idea.
Isn't it a lot more likely that their Windows boxe(s|n) just got zombified?
While your model works great for someone who knows what they're looking for, my guess is that these people are probably in the minority except when it comes to major purchases. I think that this is a significant part of the reason why the WalMart and Target type stores are so effective - you can go in for one thing and come out with several. This would be much less likely under your model.
Huh? The entire point of the store I proposed is so that you can learn what it is you really want -- i.e., you don't know what you're looking for, or know only in vague terms, and then people can help you find what your looking for without pressuring you to buy too much.
Oh, I definitely think people would pay a lot for something like this:
-having a real human hold their hand through the process of understanding what they really need
-no pressure to buy anything -- seriously
-no guilt about "using" them to get information, since the "score is settled" in terms of paying for the service that you really need
-having someone show them *how* to get the most use out of it, without buying a specific contract for that
My parents, and people their age, are always telling me about how they increasingly feel lost amid new technology, and have to bug younger people they know (who don't always like guiding them through the process). I know that if I just gave my parents Kinetic and an EyeToy to play, they wouldn't have bothered, but since I patiently guided them through the process of turning the system on and playing, they're hooked. So, it's great to have someone who can show you how to really get the most of out your purchase.
The question of whether they'd pay enough for this to be profitable is, of course, tougher. At least with the co-op method you can save a lot by making your labor mostly people who volunteer (at doing something they love!) in order to get a discount on an otherwise expensive membership fee. Say, $500 per month, OR ($50 + 16 hours) per month. You could also probably get manufacturers to let you use the stuff for free once the store becomes a "must have" for customers to consider your product.
You said:
Here's an idea for them. Turn their lobbying power on Congress to get national health insurance. Then they can get out of their obligations.
and a lot of people say the same thing, casually assuming the last sentence follows. But I don't see it. National health insurance does not, by itself, void GM's contract with the union. You would have to have NHI *and* a separate act of Congress (which would be very unusual) to void that contract.
Anyway, I don't disagree that GM and Ford have produced poor cars (and run their plants inefficiently), I just think that that problem is itself ultimately derivative of legacy costs.
Partially right. To be as succinct as possible (please read to the end to make sure I don't address the response you have in mind):
1) Yes, pension/health care obligations cause bad cars. When you have a large, unproductive expense [wait, wait, wait to the end], that your competitors do not have, your best people will be bid away to work for them.
2) Yes, GM should have (Heaven forbid!) funded the obligations in advance, unlike, say, Social Security.
3) On the other hand, when it's the union that asked for the benefit in the first place, don't they have some kind of obligation to educate themselves on where the money is coming from? A pension is deferred compensation. Workers are senior to bondholders in who gets paid first. (and bondholders are in turn senior to stockholders) So, credit agencies should have counted the obligations as debt senior to GM bonds. The union should have made sure the pension obligations were rated along with the rest of GM's debt, but like today's SS proponents, they have a hard time understanding that a promise to pay a pension *is* a debt.
The whole wretched scheme was based on the fantasy that GM would remain perpetually more profitable than other companies so they could fund legacy obligations. Management took advantage of unions' incompetence, but the reverse happened too!
And this, folks, is why I have my current sig.
Let's review:
-It's not necessarily non-profit.
-It's not limited to electronics.
-It doesn't actually sell you the stuff.
-It doesn't warehouse the stuff on-site.
-You must have a membership or pay a cover to get in, not merely to get the discounts.
If someone's doing what I suggested already, I'm interested, but please make sure you understand the idea first.
I know I keep bringing this up, but I suggested combining the two functions such that you can get low prices and service.
Yes, I know. The point is so that you can talk to a real human in person, and see the items in person, so as to supplement those other resources.
Much as it may shock you, some people aren't adept at using Wikipedia and google, some people like talking in person, some people are uncomfortable about spending a lot before they can see it in person, and some people -- okay, most people -- would benefit from in person assistance on using technology.
I wasn't trying to be funny :-/
I recently suggested a solution to this dilemma based on someone's remark on that topic.
Basically, someone should set up "stores" that don't make money on sales at all, but essentially just rent you access to the showroom so you can figure out what you need (and then perhaps rate the people there based on how informative they are -- like Slashdot) and then find the cheapest place online to get it (either using their computers there or just go home having a better idea of what you need). They would have no qualms about telling you, "ah, you don't need this stuff".
Depending on the money needed to make it work, you could either run them for-profit or as a co-op where your "membership fee" is all or partly your service of working there part-time in a department you're already knowledgeable about. You help people find what computer they should get, and in return, old folks there teach you what gardening equipment you should get (for example).
I agree with this proposal. They need to double -- perhaps, triple -- check to make sure the code works as intended.
But I also think CA has been otherwise prudent. For example, using Diebold instead of volunteer open source code. I mean, how can they afford all the volunteer labor?