The only thing that rips through the latest fashions and trends faster than corporate management is the clothing industry. Downsizing, outsourcing, just in time, corporate raiders. All went from 0-60 in under 5 years.
3-5 years is nowhere near long enough for a society. It will take 3-5 years just to implement whatever plan comes along. I guess you'll start planning for retirement when you hit 62 or so?
Of course they're doing it for the money. The outrage over the EpiPen price means they get good publicity ( = money) for entering the market. Probably millions worth of free advertising.
No, the alternative to a free market is a well regulated market. That does not imply price ceilings or floors. It may involve efforts to increase supply and almost certainly forbids collusion to artificially depress supply.
I am very well aware of the definition of Free Market. Read what I said carefully. Markets only work to the degree that the buyer has perfect information. Regulation can improve the situation by banning fraud and false advertising. It can further ban various attempts at information control (for example, by voiding contract clauses banning reviews). All of those things improve the quality of information the consumer has.
Most people call that a regulated market. You can call it what you want, but you will not clearly communicate your point that way.
And all it took was massive public outrage, several years and a Congressional hearing to get one drug long out of patent from outrageous to merely high priced.
What part of WORK do you not understand? A market can be regulated and healthy or it can be free and fail to live up to claims. It can also be poorly regulated and fail to live up to claims, of course.
How would it not? The whole premise of the free market is based on the buyer being able to determine tha value proposition of the offer. You can't do that when durability isn't apparent. For a while, brand made a decent(ish) proxy for that, but now most brands are just a shell around the no-name chassis used by multiple brands.
For example, 2 widgets priced at $30 and $35. The $30 one is made of substandard parts and will fail in a year. If the $35 one is made with quality parts, it will last 5-10 years. Simple choice. However, in the real world there's also the $40 one which is the same chassis as the $30 one but with a 'better' branding on the shell. There's also the $50 one that used to be made with high end components and would last a lifetime, but last year it switched to mid-grade parts and will last about 4 years.
If you don't have perfect information, you can only choose based on price so when it turns out to be crap, you lose as little as possible. So the $30 crappy one it is. No point in selling one that will last a lifetime at twice the price, nobody will believe it, so make one with the crappiest components known to man and sell at $25 if you actually want to stay in business. Every once in a while, use better components is a run so you can spread some dis-information around.
Likewise, competitive pricing for the same product only works when you know what other people are charging for the product.
A free market that actually delivers on the promises of a free market DOES require perfect information. Otherwise it devolves into a race to the bottom where all you can buy is crap.
If the FDA is going to regulate this sort of thing, they'd better get some experts in.
Agreed, we don't need everything on the cloud, but with appropriate precautions, some things can be better if they are. Why not make the device read-only unless the patient holds a security token up to his chest, for example. If the FDA was actually about more than making sure the reams of paperwork were filled out correctly and the right asses were kissed, they might even give that advice or even insist on it.
Because the legal eagles at Best Buy's geek squad are so careful not to report non-crimes and raise a massive shit storm over nothing. Certainly, they would never grab a copy of anything else interesting they might find while rifling through your file system.
Certainly they would never look at any private but legal images hoping to find something to report.
The altered setting SHOULDN'T have had much impact on battery life and Apple has acknowledged that. It did because of a bug. CR did not introduce the bug. Sorry it made your favorite product look bad. If CR is feeling generous, perhaps they'll give Apple a do-over once they're shipping the fixed software. If they're feeling less generous, they'll give Apple a re-do but ding them for poor QA coverage.
CR's job isn't to show the product in it's best possible light, that's for Apple's marketing department. CR's job is to show you the worst performance you'll likely get. Consider, would you rather buy something and find it even better than rated or find it nowhere near as good as it's rating?
The manufacturer is quite likely to pick default settings that will favor their benchmarks. If the tester doesn't deviate from that, the test will be well skewed. As for the rest, IF and when Apple is providing the patched safari on new Macs, CR might do a follow-up review. Until then, their current review reflects the bug the end user would actually get.
let's not understate it either. Some people give away practically the entirety of their pay for a patented drug to keep them alive. It's not exactly slavery, but it's not exactly not. People die every year because they couldn't afford a simple life saving device, test, or medication.
Static typing is a special case of contract capabilities/attributes. It's used because it's easier, but form a theoretical standpoint, you don't want to demand that the object be a "customer", you want to demand that it has a mailing address attribute accessed as.mailing_address. Ideally it should not lose it's "Employee-ness" if it gets passed in, in case a later step needs to special case that or take some extra action if the object is_A or better yet, has_A...
Python is an experiment in that with Duck Typing. In Python, it happens at the expense of losing the compile time checking. If a language really wants to innovate, it should do an analysis that allows for Python's flexibility but doesn't wait till runtime to do the checking. Yes, I realize that could be a hard problem.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty unrealistic, I'm afraid. No wonder you want to take the "what, me worry?" approach to society and the economy.
The only thing that rips through the latest fashions and trends faster than corporate management is the clothing industry. Downsizing, outsourcing, just in time, corporate raiders. All went from 0-60 in under 5 years.
3-5 years is nowhere near long enough for a society. It will take 3-5 years just to implement whatever plan comes along. I guess you'll start planning for retirement when you hit 62 or so?
All of them once the automation takes over. Sometimes, when planning, it helps to look past the next hour or two.
The problem is the untold suffering that happens for 30 of those 50 years. That's what a safety net is for.
We got the New Deal because the socialists were gaining support rapidly. It was New Deal or a Socialist revolution.
There will need to be another New Deal or there will be a revolution well before that 50 year mark.
The people calling for a safety net and other changes are basically asking "Couldn't we try learning from history this time around?".
And you're assuming there will be a job for them to find in an era when employers are busy laying off half their workforce.
Of course they're doing it for the money. The outrage over the EpiPen price means they get good publicity ( = money) for entering the market. Probably millions worth of free advertising.
No, the alternative to a free market is a well regulated market. That does not imply price ceilings or floors. It may involve efforts to increase supply and almost certainly forbids collusion to artificially depress supply.
I am very well aware of the definition of Free Market. Read what I said carefully. Markets only work to the degree that the buyer has perfect information. Regulation can improve the situation by banning fraud and false advertising. It can further ban various attempts at information control (for example, by voiding contract clauses banning reviews). All of those things improve the quality of information the consumer has.
Most people call that a regulated market. You can call it what you want, but you will not clearly communicate your point that way.
And all it took was massive public outrage, several years and a Congressional hearing to get one drug long out of patent from outrageous to merely high priced.
What part of WORK do you not understand? A market can be regulated and healthy or it can be free and fail to live up to claims. It can also be poorly regulated and fail to live up to claims, of course.
How would it not? The whole premise of the free market is based on the buyer being able to determine tha value proposition of the offer. You can't do that when durability isn't apparent. For a while, brand made a decent(ish) proxy for that, but now most brands are just a shell around the no-name chassis used by multiple brands.
For example, 2 widgets priced at $30 and $35. The $30 one is made of substandard parts and will fail in a year. If the $35 one is made with quality parts, it will last 5-10 years. Simple choice. However, in the real world there's also the $40 one which is the same chassis as the $30 one but with a 'better' branding on the shell. There's also the $50 one that used to be made with high end components and would last a lifetime, but last year it switched to mid-grade parts and will last about 4 years.
If you don't have perfect information, you can only choose based on price so when it turns out to be crap, you lose as little as possible. So the $30 crappy one it is. No point in selling one that will last a lifetime at twice the price, nobody will believe it, so make one with the crappiest components known to man and sell at $25 if you actually want to stay in business. Every once in a while, use better components is a run so you can spread some dis-information around.
Likewise, competitive pricing for the same product only works when you know what other people are charging for the product.
A free market that actually delivers on the promises of a free market DOES require perfect information. Otherwise it devolves into a race to the bottom where all you can buy is crap.
They weren't sent TO Microsoft. They were sent to other users. If I send Joe Blow a letter and YOU open it, it is certainly a privacy violation.
If the FDA is going to regulate this sort of thing, they'd better get some experts in.
Agreed, we don't need everything on the cloud, but with appropriate precautions, some things can be better if they are. Why not make the device read-only unless the patient holds a security token up to his chest, for example. If the FDA was actually about more than making sure the reams of paperwork were filled out correctly and the right asses were kissed, they might even give that advice or even insist on it.
So you're saying they have an un-seeing procedure when they look at someone's personal and private pictures that turn out to be legal?
Because the legal eagles at Best Buy's geek squad are so careful not to report non-crimes and raise a massive shit storm over nothing. Certainly, they would never grab a copy of anything else interesting they might find while rifling through your file system.
Certainly they would never look at any private but legal images hoping to find something to report.
There wasn't anything wrong with their test, it was the same test everything else went through. Evidently they did discuss the matter with Apple.
Are you honestly shocked when the MPG you get falls short of the manufacturer's claims?
According to CR, that's what will happen.
The altered setting SHOULDN'T have had much impact on battery life and Apple has acknowledged that. It did because of a bug. CR did not introduce the bug. Sorry it made your favorite product look bad. If CR is feeling generous, perhaps they'll give Apple a do-over once they're shipping the fixed software. If they're feeling less generous, they'll give Apple a re-do but ding them for poor QA coverage.
CR's job isn't to show the product in it's best possible light, that's for Apple's marketing department. CR's job is to show you the worst performance you'll likely get. Consider, would you rather buy something and find it even better than rated or find it nowhere near as good as it's rating?
The manufacturer is quite likely to pick default settings that will favor their benchmarks. If the tester doesn't deviate from that, the test will be well skewed. As for the rest, IF and when Apple is providing the patched safari on new Macs, CR might do a follow-up review. Until then, their current review reflects the bug the end user would actually get.
The test was good. It was Safari that had the flaw. Thanks to the Consumer Reports test it was revealed so it can be fixed.
As for actual user, you do know that Macs are popular among web designers?
They're kinda stuck. If they lay out their actual reasons for termination, they open themselves to a big lawsuit for privacy violation.
Keep in mind, this ruling included misconduct on the part of the law firm beyond simply accepting the case on contingency.
let's not understate it either. Some people give away practically the entirety of their pay for a patented drug to keep them alive. It's not exactly slavery, but it's not exactly not. People die every year because they couldn't afford a simple life saving device, test, or medication.
Static typing is a special case of contract capabilities/attributes. It's used because it's easier, but form a theoretical standpoint, you don't want to demand that the object be a "customer", you want to demand that it has a mailing address attribute accessed as .mailing_address. Ideally it should not lose it's "Employee-ness" if it gets passed in, in case a later step needs to special case that or take some extra action if the object is_A or better yet, has_A...
Python is an experiment in that with Duck Typing. In Python, it happens at the expense of losing the compile time checking. If a language really wants to innovate, it should do an analysis that allows for Python's flexibility but doesn't wait till runtime to do the checking. Yes, I realize that could be a hard problem.