I made an earlier post about how Rheem Canada and Hillcrest plumbing really screwed me over. It was one of the highest read blog posts I have made. What surprised me was the exact number of people who seemed to have similar experiences working with one or both of these companies. A spokesman for Rheem Canada actually offered me $150 to settle. What a laugh! $150 to stifle the truth that Rheem Canada and Hillcrest Plumbing are ripping off consumers? No way! I will not compromise.
The latest victim writes in:
"Just had our Rheem tank go too! It was installed in August,2003 by
Hillcrest. They now equip gas water heaters to an FVIR code.
The FVIR (Flammable Vapour Ignition Resistant)notice was out in July of 2003.
Seems Hillcrest was selling off their old stock! Called them about the warranty, they said it would cost $290.00 for labour (high, but fair enough) but they also wanted an "Upcharge Fee" of $250.00, plus a $65.00 permit fee(for which they didn't charge for 4 years ago).
Rheem charges $90.00 for the Upcharge, so Hillcrest is making another $160.00 by passing it to the consumer!
http://www.emcobc.ca/Menus/Document%20Library/BC%20pdfs/Upcharge%20NRCan%20discontinue%20April_05.pdf
(or Google FVIR/NRCan )
The FVIR is useless regulatory bullshit, as most gas hot water heaters are located next to the gas central heater, which have no flame arrestors anyway!!:"
Yes, Virginia - Rheem and Hillcrest are apparently thieves. Spread the word - put them out of business. Sue them!!!
You, I and others all have other choices. Use them. If we collectively put these liars out of business, perhaps the other companies will have more respect for consumers in the future.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Why David Recordon (Six Apart) needs an Ontology!
David Recordon and I had noticed a similar issue. At Web 2.0 we connected and talked about it. The issue is one of how in every social network you have to manually re-declare your whole social network. Rather than repeat it here, the post can be read here:
http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/11/cmon-web-20-get-it-together-now.html
Short version:
Why do we have to keep re-declaring our social networks for every single social network application (Facebook, Mix2r, Twitter, Plaxo, MySpace, Dopplr,
whateverthehellcomesnext.com)?
David and I had lunch in the UK with Matt (CTO, Dopplr) and James Governor (RedMonk) and all agreed that this is an issue facing the next social network. David made a great presentation of it at Web 2.0 Expo Berlin.
We seem to agree that the solution is a non-proprietary open social graphing application that can be used to suck social networks into various social sites. If we are to make an open social network provider service, there are a lot of answers that have to be figured out first. Foremost, real FOL and ontology work has to be done. The social networks of today have limited and immature binary relationships. Here is an example:
"A is a friend of B"
What does this mean? Is it asymmetrical or symmetrical (is B also a friend of A?). Does B know A exists? Can B traverse the binary relationship (see that A declares B is a friend)? If so, does B know the exact nature of the declaration on the relationship? Do either A or B survive if the relationship is dead? Does the relationship exist if either A or B cease to exist?
There are simply far too many of these types of questions that are not really answered by existing social networks. This sort of ontology work is sadly needed. Perhaps a group like the Ontolog Forum can become involved to help sort some of this out.
Davd is a smart guy - I cannot wait to see what he comes up with!
Thoughts? Comments?
BTW - I am on vacation for two weeks and will not respond after tonight CET.
http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/11/cmon-web-20-get-it-together-now.html
Short version:
Why do we have to keep re-declaring our social networks for every single social network application (Facebook, Mix2r, Twitter, Plaxo, MySpace, Dopplr,
whateverthehellcomesnext.com)?
David and I had lunch in the UK with Matt (CTO, Dopplr) and James Governor (RedMonk) and all agreed that this is an issue facing the next social network. David made a great presentation of it at Web 2.0 Expo Berlin.
We seem to agree that the solution is a non-proprietary open social graphing application that can be used to suck social networks into various social sites. If we are to make an open social network provider service, there are a lot of answers that have to be figured out first. Foremost, real FOL and ontology work has to be done. The social networks of today have limited and immature binary relationships. Here is an example:
"A is a friend of B"
What does this mean? Is it asymmetrical or symmetrical (is B also a friend of A?). Does B know A exists? Can B traverse the binary relationship (see that A declares B is a friend)? If so, does B know the exact nature of the declaration on the relationship? Do either A or B survive if the relationship is dead? Does the relationship exist if either A or B cease to exist?
There are simply far too many of these types of questions that are not really answered by existing social networks. This sort of ontology work is sadly needed. Perhaps a group like the Ontolog Forum can become involved to help sort some of this out.
Davd is a smart guy - I cannot wait to see what he comes up with!
Thoughts? Comments?
BTW - I am on vacation for two weeks and will not respond after tonight CET.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)