I kind of gathered that from the obvious amount of thought you put into your original argument.
In stark contrast to the vast amount of thought you've put in? Not quite...
The BBB is only useless if consumers ignore it.
That's correct and precisely my point, they are useless because there's no solid reason for the companies to pay attention to it other than if the consumer pays attention to it--and we both know how fickle consumers are. You even made an example of how this DOESN'T work--CR's tests were false, Suzuki had evidence of this, yet consumers didn't listen.
All the BBB has are empty threats. Establishing an independent agency of the government will back it up with the necessary authority so that it wouldn't be ignored. Relying on your CR scenario to curb the industry would be worthless: there's no telling what the consumer will and won't ignore regarding the empty threats that come out of baseless committees. To ensure the industry would listen, one needs sufficient negative reinforcement when they don't listen.
You put forth a scenario presuming a government agency can be separated from financial/political interests and trusted to make decisions on purely ethical grounds.
Apparently you're unaware of how these agencies of the government work. I can't blame you--nothing you've said so far lacks ignorance. The President of the United States (a person whom was directly elected by the people) sends a list of candidates for the board to be approved by the Senate (100 people voted into their position by--you guessed it--the general population). This ensures that the people elected to the board of whatever agency are elected by a hodgepodge of people with differing political agendas WHO EACH IN TURN WAS DIRECTLY ELECTED TO THEIR POSITION BY THE GENERAL POPULATION. Now, the possibility of the board being corrupt is certainly there, the potential is zero. You would have to have voted a president and all 100 members of the senate into office having the exact same political position which has never and will never happen.
And before you put forth your best effort to blow holes in this statement, the above has been proven to work quite well. There have been sufficiently few instances of politically corrupt independent agencies to believe that system works--for what it's worth anyway. When was the last time you've heard the FCC using it's power for political gain? Never, and the commission's goals were in stark contrast to the right-dominated government (80% of the last decade).
How old are you? Can you even vote?
Seriously? Grow up, and take a break from the Internet please. Nobody likes talking to an asshole.
It scares me that you might actually trust in government enough that you could believe that such an institution could actually exist.
I would like to point out that if there were a way of curbing the industry without government intervention, I'm all for that. I just don't see that happening whatsoever since the government has set up a system to protect the companies which inadvertently put them in control of the industry instead of the consumer. Since you obviously believe you're superior to me, please tell me your suggestion. After all, you must have one since you're trying so hard to blow holes in mine. And for future reference, this is how conversations "in the real world" usually go. If you disagree, you make recommendations instead of attempting to sound superior but giving no real contribution to the conversation.
Who gets to decide what that threshold is?
This is not something I really had interest in answering, since everything said is completely hypothetical, but to answer you; it's not unfathomable to create a "best business practices" entity akin to the FCC (but nothing like the useless BBB). An independent agency of the Government, separated from financial/political interests, and authoritative enough to guide the industry to ethical paths. Don't read into this too much--I would never claim the FCC as an imperfect entity, only more good than bad.
Honestly, all I'm trying to say is the service providers should be forced to write a clause in their contracts that explicitly say at what speed they fail to live up to their end of the deal. This shouldn't HAVE to be forced upon them, but it seems they lack the ethics to do so on their own accord. And the consumer lacks the ability to submit an amended contract.
Ignorance of the contract terms is no defense, nor should it be.
Your first point is false (as evidenced by a multitude of businessmen and government officials claiming ignorance to paperwork that they signed--and getting away with it), but I fully agree with your second point.
Are you purposely trolling, or just stuck in a rage? Not only did I say expecting 100% of advertised speeds unrealistic, but I also said getting 70% of said speeds is acceptable, albeit barely. Furthermore, I never once claimed there WAS a law stating a consumer has the right to take ISPs to court if they don't hit their "up to" speed. All I was saying is that there has to be some threshold (read: less than 100%) where consumers could ARGUE false advertisement. One is expecting intervention from the government, the other is claiming only an arguable case for, as an example, a breach of contract. There's a subtle but distinct difference.
I think maybe you should cool down a bit instead of arguing with people who literally agreed with your point.
Samsung didn’t give any figures, but when a company describes sales of a flagship product as “quite small,” you better believe those sales are microscopic.
As you heard, our sell-in was quite aggressive and this first quarterly result was quite, you know, fourth-quarter unit [figure] was around two million. Then, in terms of sell-out, we also believe it was quite small. We believe, as the introduction of new device, it was required to have consumers invest in the device. So therefore, even though sell-out wasn’t as fast as we expected, we still believe sell-out was quite OK.
This was back when people were touting the "2 million Galaxy Tabs" sold when in fact that was just the shipped figure and then Samsung is saying the sales were "quite small". Yes, that would lead very much to believe that it is "dramatically less". Otherwise, if the sales were so great why don't they quote the actual sales numbers rather than the shipped numbers? Businesses do this to hide the fact that actual sales suck.
This would be true, except that later that day (or perhaps the next day) a redaction was submitted, saying he was misunderstood. What he really said was "quite smooth".
So you are saying the new reactor will only kill our kids in 30-40 years or so?
What a relief.
What? No, What I'm saying is exactly what was said: They were built to a 40 year old standard, implying standards have changed. I went on to say all nuclear power plants continuously update their facilities, improving their structure and build code, but Japanese government decided not to, and decided not to heed the warnings of the agencies who regulate these standards.
What's so hard to understand about that?
You do realize the Fukushima Daiichi plant is 40 years old, right?
Yes, and I'm also aware that the plant was supposed to have been decommissioned already, per the regulatory code you cite. It just wasn't because that regulatory code was ignored for the sake of profit and convenience.
The code wasn't ignored, it was overturned. The regulators were telling the Japanese government that it was unsafe for the last 5 years. They were also talking about the falsified safety records in the plant. Nobody lied, this was public information. It was just completely disregarded by the Japanese government.
There are a lot of plants built during that time, sure, but every plant that I know of keeps up with the current safety standards and are under constant, continuous monitoring to make sure everything is safe.
And with all the lies about the state of Fukishima while it was occuring, how can I trust anything you say about these inspections? Are the inspectors on the take from the industry? Did they used to work in the industry? Are they ignoring this hairline crack or that little problem because "it'll be OK"?
The inspectors are not financially influenced by the industry at all. IAEA, which is the security organization that was warning Japan of the issues regarding Fukushima Daiichi, reports directly to the UN. Their focus is peaceful uses of nuclear technology as well as regulate nuclear safety and security. This industry also has at least two more regulatory councils; WANO, (which was established after Chernobyl by IAEA, the UN, and independent governments/nuclear plants, whose focus is nuclear safety and efficiency) as well as WINS (established in 2008 to influence the safe handling of nuclear material and facilities). I would absolutely hope they used to work in the industry, I can't imagine anybody more qualified to inspect a nuclear power plant than someone from the field. The inspectors don't ignore a single hair, let alone a hairline crack. I've been through inspections before, they are properly thorough. Besides, if one of them lies, they'll be caught red-handed by either of the other two and wouldn't be trusted again.
I don't trust the regulators. I don't trust the industry. They both lie. How can I have any trust for any part of it when they lie?
Neither the regulators nor the industry lie. There's no incentive for the regulators to brush over something, they don't get bonuses for passing more plants, they themselves are regulated by the UN. The last thing they want is to break international law. The liars are the governments. They're the ones that have to sink money into plants that need repairs/reconditioning. Japan happens to be a very proud country and ignored the warnings given. This is what has to stop.
At least I know the coal industry isn't lying to me. I know what the dangers are and I trust that people are aware. I do not trust any booster of nuclear power anymore. With so many lies, how can I? And you don't even bother to address that point at all, which tells me you don't actually care that they lie.
The coal industry is most certainly lying to you. They spend MILLIONS in advertising and attempts at covering up the death numbers. But more importantly, you make a very dangerous, and erroneous, assumption. If you assume people know of the dangers (which is not true, as evidenced by this article stating that ten years ago, one out of five people believed the sun revolves around Earth) you're putting more faith in mankind then they deserve. People live ignorantly by choice.
The danger and scope of Fukishima was consistently understated. Repeated posts by people just like you told me how many redundant safety features there were and how they now had it all under control. You all lied to me. You're probably lying to me now. I suspect a lot of you even believed yourselves when you posted the nonsense you did. The liar who believes their own lies is the most dangerous kind.
This is true--correct and unbiased information was hard to come by (and still is to some degree) largely due to Japan's proud government. They do what they can to not appear weak, it's socially ingrained in them. But to call us, or anybody else, a liar is pointing fingers in the wrong area. Most of the problems were covered up until they boiled over, but not by us or the media or by the regulators. Don't call 'guilty' unless you're completely positive of the guilt.
You do realize the Fukushima Daiichi plant is 40 years old, right? It was built to regulatory code in the very late 60's/early 70's. There are a lot of plants built during that time, sure, but every plant that I know of keeps up with the current safety standards and are under constant, continuous monitoring to make sure everything is safe. I fully agree that more regulation is needed in some places, but in the US and Canada at least (and I imagine the UK as well), that regulation is already in place. Why do people fear nuclear power--a form of energy that is proven to be very safe, reliable and environmentally clean (though not renewable)--but they don't say the same about coal, an industry that has an appalling number of deaths?
I don't feel nuclear energy generation is the answer long-term, as we will run out of radioactive material and places to safely store them, but compared to what the world uses currently, it is the solution we need right now and can, at a minimum, sustain us for hundreds of years until we master more renewable sources.
It is. All 12 non-paranoid people left in the human race consider it exactly that.
That pretty much nails it right there. Well said.
I disagree. In fact, it's incredibly taxing on our economy to keep up the prohibition. Unless the government has a hand in selling marijuana (I doubt that marijuana would be their illegal narcotic of choice) then all they're doing is shoveling millions of dollars into the prisons to pay for the prisoners in jail for selling/possessing it.
However, if they legalize and tax it, marijuana would bring in millions of dollars.
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt