Re:Shouldn't that be too bloated to test?
on
Too Darned Big to Test?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"If only they really understood this. I presented this to my manager, and he said "But cost is free, because everyone is salaried and can just work overtime." He was serious."
And some say that programmers/coders/employees don't understand business....
Granted, from his perspective, it WAS free. Wouldn't seem to be a good way to run a business but there seem to be a lot of businesses that make lots of money operating that way.
"IANAL, but given that ebay isn't a registered auctioneer, it ought not to be too terribly difficult to get judicial review on this in Ohio and have ebay (and other on-line sites like Yahoo's "auctions") ruled not a traditional auction and thus exempt from this mess."
Nice thought, bad idea. What happens if Ohio decides ebay is a traditional auctioneer? Or if a court somewhere does? Oops. Sometimes ambiguity is good.
The one thing that really protects ebay (and others like it) is that it is POPULAR. Otherwise, it would be very easy for a state to consider it a traditional auctioneer. Remember, public officials do not like to deal with angry constituents.
"...it would have been nice if one of the journalists involved had bothered to ask."
Well, the legislator said he didn't THINK it would apply to individuals using ebay. Which means, he probably doesn't have a clue. Not a good sign.
Of course, just because it wasn't intended to affect ebay doesn't mean it won't. That is up to prosecutors (to apply the law) and the courts (to interpret the law). I would almost guarantee that this law WILL be applied to ebay and individuals. And the opinion of the lawmaker will mean squat.
"This, too, is easily available. Return on equity is a good measure of whether investors in drug companies are enjoying disproportionate returns."
No it isn't.
Disproportionate returns is an ethical/moral judgement. What is their markup on an ESSENTIAL product. I think you will find it is a lot more than, say, food, housing, clothing. The markup on non-essential medications I can ignore. I don't need beer or soda or software for that matter.
As another poster noted, compare industries, not individual companies. Compare prices within the US and outside the US.
"What possible incentive will drug companies have to spend billions on R&D if you take away this incentive?"
It's called profit. As a side benefit, health care costs won't increase as much. Ever notice that certain health concerns weren't "big" until medication to treat them were present? Were those health concerns real (probably to a point) or have they been overblown? (also probably true...)
"This socialist approach will discourage the investment of capital in drug companies, and discourage the investment of drug companies on R&D."
I'll let you into a little secret. More money is spent on advertising/marketing than R&D. Much money is spent on "me too" drugs. Drugs similar to those already on the market. The minority of drugs are "new" and "improved". Otherwise, why WOULD you spend so much money on advertising? I mean, that is money that could be profit. Or R&D.
When drug companies don't spend massive amounts of money pushing their product, I will consider listening to their "innovation" arguments. When they actually start innovating, I will definitely listen.
"Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while."
Funny about that. I thought one of the official reasons for the small crew on the ISS was due to the requirement for sufficient escape vessels (Soyuz capsules). If seven additional astronauts can stay on the ISS for a bit without sufficient escape vessels, why isn't the ISS crew larger. I mean, emergency or no, if it isn't safe to have more people than means of escape, why should the shuttle be allowed to dock at all? What if there is an accident? Oops.
Or should I not be using NASA logic against it?:) I mean, if I keep going, I just may assume most of what NASA does is based on PR value and not science or risk....
"Sure, the actual company itself sucks... but you have to deal with the bad to get the good. I dont mind all of the free rentals either."
I hate to break this to you, but YOU are part of the company. You are a manager, a person with power to make changes. Apparently you will sell out for cheap trinkets:) Apologies if you never had any ethics/morals to begin with of course. And if you don't like what I have just said, remember, you stated indirectly that YOU SUCK:)
BTW, lots of companies offer 4 day work weeks and days off.
"How can people be so stupid? Sure the advertisement is "false" but you would assume it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt."
Gee, I don't know, maybe they aren't?. Maybe some people are just sick and tired of false advertising? And Blockbuster makes a nice juicy target for an attorney general?
Sorry, I won't shed any tears for Blockbuster. They deserve far more than what they will get. As I have stated elsewhere, the only problem is that other advertisers are not being targetted. If you can't sell your product truthfully, it isn't worth crap.
"Without getting into the details, just think about it logically: That 0% financing costs money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Since the source of all of the money used to build, transport, market, finance, wash, gas and deliver the car to you came from *you* (unless someone lost money somewhere along the way which did not happen), then the cost of the 0% financing came from you."
I think you are ignoring (forgetting?) a few things. First, the 0% interest comes from the manufacturer, not the dealer. They (dealer) don't lose any money here. They may not make any either. Second, it was last years model. They want it gone. After all, it hasn't sold for nearly a year. They probably already lost money on it overall. Or are making very little.
"And I guarantee you that they absolutely did not take a dime less from you than their defined minimum profit margin."
That is not to say that the dealer didn't make a profit-they did, even the car buyer admits this. Who cares. They need to make a profit to stay in business-and maybe they figure they can make it up later. But they probably didn't make a large one.
Believe it or not, not all dealerships are assholes. It just seems that way. It is possible for a car buyer to get a good deal and a dealer to make money. In any case, until you know the specifics of the deal, opinions are like assholes....
"If you should choose never to return the movie, you do not pay this "new late fee."
The movie? You now own a copy. If you wish to return the copy you own, you can do so for the nominal $1.25 restocking fee."
Yes, you own the movie at full retail price. No need for a late fee there:)
If I am charged a fee for returning a movie past the due date then it IS a late fee. No matter what they call it. It just sounds better.
The place I rent from has a per day charge. I rent x days, I pay x days. No other charges. I pay when I return the movie. Simple. No lying. Local with a better selection than Blockbuster.
The only problem here is that most other advertisers aren't getting sued. If you can't advertise your product truthfully and expect people to buy it, it isn't worth it.
"People who regularly handle secret (and above) data did a bad job of protecting sensitive data. I'd say that this bodes ill for the truly secret data that they have at other sites."
Not necessarily. Think of it this way. What exactly is the penalty for doing a bad job of protecting personal data? Versus secret and above data?
"I like Star Wars because it has excellent acting and dealt with good versus evil."
Well, your points seemed reasonable until you used "excellent acting" and "Star Wars" in the same sentence. Kind of sabotages any credibility you might have had. On the plus side, it didn't occur until the 4th sentence.
"Through heavy exploitation of tax loopholes their tax rate is around 7%, try getting that tax rate if you work for a living."
Hmm, I think their accountants suck:) I mean they PAY taxes. I believe a heck of a lot of corporations don't pay any taxes. Oh, here's some statistics (MSN Money) 60% percent paid no taxes between 1996 and 2000. 94% paid less than 5%. So, their accountants really do suck.
"If they ever get around to "the missing uranium actually never existed," then I think I shall disbelieve."
But they could be correct. That's the hard part about determining motives. I mean, it would be utterly unremarkable for something to be missing in the warehouse I work at. And for it to have never been there to begin with. But let's face it, their accounting procedures abviously aren't any better than private enterprise.
The thing you SHOULD be scared of/ask questions about: Why are the accounting procedures so bad that this can happen? If this information/stuff is important, then these mistakes shouldn't happen. Something going missing that existed and something missing that never existed should be equally BAD. If it isn't important for these safeguards to exist, then the material probably doesn't need to be classified to begin with.
"It's a hazard to serve any drink above 140F. The coffee was at 185F, McDonald's knew it. At 185F the coffee is not consumable and the product (drinkable coffee) was defective."
Well, then coffee has to be considered an inherently hazardous product. I guess we should ban it completely. It's funny, after about 30 seconds of searching I found some interesting information about coffee from a manufacturer of brewing equipment. Ideal holding temps of 175 to 185 degrees F. Ideal serving temps of ~155 to 175 degrees F. Just because a court found certain "facts" to be true doesn't mean the court isn't full of blithering idiots....
A few points. You are wrong. Many people are stupid. And bad things happen to good people all the time. That's why you should always carry health insurance in the US.
"It's the same thing on a corporate scale. "Big corporations" don't dump on and despoil land they own and intend to keep (it's worth money, they don't want to ruin it). Dumping always happens on public land somewhere."
Well, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Take a look at federal superfund sites sometime. Or where environmental cleanups are taking place. You will find a heck of a lot of them that occur on land owned by corporations. Companies are perfectly happy to "ruin" land they intend to keep. Sure, it may not be intentional but it still happens.
They just tend not to clean it up until it affects the public at large. Or they want to sell the land. Or it gives them a bad image.
"People value what's theirs. All it takes is to look at any public park and see the trash blowing through it (often dumped within feet of a trash can). Yet these same people who will toss a burger wrapper out of their car at 60mph will be just as likely to go home and obsessively groom their lawns and maintain their homes."
Do they? I mean, I can show you private property that looks worse that a landfill. The tragedy of the commons is real. But don't pretend that people don't crap in their own backyards just because it fits in with a personal agenda or worldview.
We don't have a better environment that the old Soviet Union because of private land ownership. We have it because we are more prosperous. We have it because we actually follow laws that we pass. This may be related to private land ownership-but does not necessarily follow from it.
"And to think I bought it to be more reliable that a European car..."
You bought a Hyundai and thought it would be more reliable than a European car? Exactly what car, the Yugo?
Remember length of warranty does not equal reliability.... Inexpensive is not a good sign either-of course paying more does not equal more reliability. I would NEVER touch a Hyundai after seeing their first gen cars-they have improved greatly but they cut corners badly before....
"Credit card companies do this, because they're on the hook for any fraud over 50 bucks."
Technically, yes it will cost them money. But how much money do they really lose? Any fraudulent charges get eaten by the MERCHANT, not the CC company, remember. Once a bank has transferred the money, it may not be recoverable. An actual loss.
In any case, I doubt they will spend more money on prevention than they feel they will lose through fraud. After all, they can raise their rates and fees pretty much at will to make up for any loss. That banks don't do it, implies that there is not a large problem (to their profit).
"(which is really rather surprising considering banks never allow themselves to be on the losing end)"
Oh, don't worry about the banks. They aren't going to lose money. Maybe on certain transactions. But there is a reason they charge high fees and interest rates....
Slashdot Mirror
"If only they really understood this. I presented this to my manager, and he said "But cost is free, because everyone is salaried and can just work overtime." He was serious."
And some say that programmers/coders/employees don't understand business....
Granted, from his perspective, it WAS free. Wouldn't seem to be a good way to run a business but there seem to be a lot of businesses that make lots of money operating that way.
"IANAL, but given that ebay isn't a registered auctioneer, it ought not to be too terribly difficult to get judicial review on this in Ohio and have ebay (and other on-line sites like Yahoo's "auctions") ruled not a traditional auction and thus exempt from this mess."
Nice thought, bad idea. What happens if Ohio decides ebay is a traditional auctioneer? Or if a court somewhere does? Oops. Sometimes ambiguity is good.
The one thing that really protects ebay (and others like it) is that it is POPULAR. Otherwise, it would be very easy for a state to consider it a traditional auctioneer. Remember, public officials do not like to deal with angry constituents.
"...it would have been nice if one of the journalists involved had bothered to ask."
Well, the legislator said he didn't THINK it would apply to individuals using ebay. Which means, he probably doesn't have a clue. Not a good sign.
Of course, just because it wasn't intended to affect ebay doesn't mean it won't. That is up to prosecutors (to apply the law) and the courts (to interpret the law). I would almost guarantee that this law WILL be applied to ebay and individuals. And the opinion of the lawmaker will mean squat.
Of course, the text of the law would be nice....
I don't know, seems to have worked so far for (we're not a bank) paypal :)
"This, too, is easily available. Return on equity is a good measure of whether investors in drug companies are enjoying disproportionate returns."
No it isn't.
Disproportionate returns is an ethical/moral judgement. What is their markup on an ESSENTIAL product. I think you will find it is a lot more than, say, food, housing, clothing. The markup on non-essential medications I can ignore. I don't need beer or soda or software for that matter.
As another poster noted, compare industries, not individual companies. Compare prices within the US and outside the US.
"What possible incentive will drug companies have to spend billions on R&D if you take away this incentive?"
It's called profit. As a side benefit, health care costs won't increase as much. Ever notice that certain health concerns weren't "big" until medication to treat them were present? Were those health concerns real (probably to a point) or have they been overblown? (also probably true...)
"This socialist approach will discourage the investment of capital in drug companies, and discourage the investment of drug companies on R&D."
I'll let you into a little secret. More money is spent on advertising/marketing than R&D. Much money is spent on "me too" drugs. Drugs similar to those already on the market. The minority of drugs are "new" and "improved". Otherwise, why WOULD you spend so much money on advertising? I mean, that is money that could be profit. Or R&D.
When drug companies don't spend massive amounts of money pushing their product, I will consider listening to their "innovation" arguments. When they actually start innovating, I will definitely listen.
Anyone want to bet one of the proposed solutions is not to do backups :) Not that they would admit that...
:)
I mean, you can't lose tapes if you don't have any. Saves on transport costs too
"Well, Presuming that the bugger does not blow up on launch, this thing is going to the ISS. If they cannot come back down due to a safety issue, they could conceivably stay up there for a while."
:) I mean, if I keep going, I just may assume most of what NASA does is based on PR value and not science or risk....
Funny about that. I thought one of the official reasons for the small crew on the ISS was due to the requirement for sufficient escape vessels (Soyuz capsules). If seven additional astronauts can stay on the ISS for a bit without sufficient escape vessels, why isn't the ISS crew larger. I mean, emergency or no, if it isn't safe to have more people than means of escape, why should the shuttle be allowed to dock at all? What if there is an accident? Oops.
Or should I not be using NASA logic against it?
Yes to part 1
:)
No to part 2 (something about being against informal government regs regarding use of taxpayer money
"Sure, the actual company itself sucks... but you have to deal with the bad to get the good. I dont mind all of the free rentals either."
:) Apologies if you never had any ethics/morals to begin with of course. And if you don't like what I have just said, remember, you stated indirectly that YOU SUCK :)
I hate to break this to you, but YOU are part of the company. You are a manager, a person with power to make changes. Apparently you will sell out for cheap trinkets
BTW, lots of companies offer 4 day work weeks and days off.
"How can people be so stupid? Sure the advertisement is "false" but you would assume it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt."
Gee, I don't know, maybe they aren't?. Maybe some people are just sick and tired of false advertising? And Blockbuster makes a nice juicy target for an attorney general?
Sorry, I won't shed any tears for Blockbuster. They deserve far more than what they will get. As I have stated elsewhere, the only problem is that other advertisers are not being targetted. If you can't sell your product truthfully, it isn't worth crap.
"Which absolutely gaurantees that you could have negotiated for a better cash price."
No it doesn't. If the dealer/manufacturer makes more money off a financed car, why exactly would they want to sell a car for cash at a lower price?
If the dealer can get sufficient profit, they will sell the car. If not, they won't.
"Without getting into the details, just think about it logically: That 0% financing costs money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Since the source of all of the money used to build, transport, market, finance, wash, gas and deliver the car to you came from *you* (unless someone lost money somewhere along the way which did not happen), then the cost of the 0% financing came from you."
I think you are ignoring (forgetting?) a few things. First, the 0% interest comes from the manufacturer, not the dealer. They (dealer) don't lose any money here. They may not make any either. Second, it was last years model. They want it gone. After all, it hasn't sold for nearly a year. They probably already lost money on it overall. Or are making very little.
"And I guarantee you that they absolutely did not take a dime less from you than their defined minimum profit margin."
That is not to say that the dealer didn't make a profit-they did, even the car buyer admits this. Who cares. They need to make a profit to stay in business-and maybe they figure they can make it up later. But they probably didn't make a large one.
Believe it or not, not all dealerships are assholes. It just seems that way. It is possible for a car buyer to get a good deal and a dealer to make money. In any case, until you know the specifics of the deal, opinions are like assholes....
"If you should choose never to return the movie, you do not pay this "new late fee."
:)
The movie? You now own a copy. If you wish to return the copy you own, you can do so for the nominal $1.25 restocking fee."
Yes, you own the movie at full retail price. No need for a late fee there
If I am charged a fee for returning a movie past the due date then it IS a late fee. No matter what they call it. It just sounds better.
The place I rent from has a per day charge. I rent x days, I pay x days. No other charges. I pay when I return the movie. Simple. No lying. Local with a better selection than Blockbuster.
The only problem here is that most other advertisers aren't getting sued. If you can't advertise your product truthfully and expect people to buy it, it isn't worth it.
"People who regularly handle secret (and above) data did a bad job of protecting sensitive data. I'd say that this bodes ill for the truly secret data that they have at other sites."
Not necessarily. Think of it this way. What exactly is the penalty for doing a bad job of protecting personal data? Versus secret and above data?
"I like Star Wars because it has excellent acting and dealt with good versus evil."
Well, your points seemed reasonable until you used "excellent acting" and "Star Wars" in the same sentence. Kind of sabotages any credibility you might have had. On the plus side, it didn't occur until the 4th sentence.
"Through heavy exploitation of tax loopholes their tax rate is around 7%, try getting that tax rate if you work for a living."
:) I mean they PAY taxes. I believe a heck of a lot of corporations don't pay any taxes. Oh, here's some statistics (MSN Money) 60% percent paid no taxes between 1996 and 2000. 94% paid less than 5%. So, their accountants really do suck.
Hmm, I think their accountants suck
"If they ever get around to "the missing uranium actually never existed," then I think I shall disbelieve."
But they could be correct. That's the hard part about determining motives. I mean, it would be utterly unremarkable for something to be missing in the warehouse I work at. And for it to have never been there to begin with. But let's face it, their accounting procedures abviously aren't any better than private enterprise.
The thing you SHOULD be scared of/ask questions about: Why are the accounting procedures so bad that this can happen? If this information/stuff is important, then these mistakes shouldn't happen. Something going missing that existed and something missing that never existed should be equally BAD. If it isn't important for these safeguards to exist, then the material probably doesn't need to be classified to begin with.
"It's a hazard to serve any drink above 140F. The coffee was at 185F, McDonald's knew it. At 185F the coffee is not consumable and the product (drinkable coffee) was defective."
Well, then coffee has to be considered an inherently hazardous product. I guess we should ban it completely. It's funny, after about 30 seconds of searching I found some interesting information about coffee from a manufacturer of brewing equipment. Ideal holding temps of 175 to 185 degrees F. Ideal serving temps of ~155 to 175 degrees F. Just because a court found certain "facts" to be true doesn't mean the court isn't full of blithering idiots....
A few points. You are wrong. Many people are stupid. And bad things happen to good people all the time. That's why you should always carry health insurance in the US.
Note that a group of replanted trees (aka crops) is not the same thing as a forest. A true forest is a heck of a lot more valuable than cropland.
"It's the same thing on a corporate scale. "Big corporations" don't dump on and despoil land they own and intend to keep (it's worth money, they don't want to ruin it). Dumping always happens on public land somewhere."
Well, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Take a look at federal superfund sites sometime. Or where environmental cleanups are taking place. You will find a heck of a lot of them that occur on land owned by corporations. Companies are perfectly happy to "ruin" land they intend to keep. Sure, it may not be intentional but it still happens.
They just tend not to clean it up until it affects the public at large. Or they want to sell the land. Or it gives them a bad image.
"People value what's theirs. All it takes is to look at any public park and see the trash blowing through it (often dumped within feet of a trash can). Yet these same people who will toss a burger wrapper out of their car at 60mph will be just as likely to go home and obsessively groom their lawns and maintain their homes."
Do they? I mean, I can show you private property that looks worse that a landfill. The tragedy of the commons is real. But don't pretend that people don't crap in their own backyards just because it fits in with a personal agenda or worldview.
We don't have a better environment that the old Soviet Union because of private land ownership. We have it because we are more prosperous. We have it because we actually follow laws that we pass. This may be related to private land ownership-but does not necessarily follow from it.
"Chrysler dealerships have been staffed by lazy, incompentent, and boderline criminal bastards for a long, long time."
:)
Hey, now, let's not limit ourselves just to Chrysler dealerships. You are describing many dealerships of many (all?) brands
"And to think I bought it to be more reliable that a European car..."
You bought a Hyundai and thought it would be more reliable than a European car? Exactly what car, the Yugo?
Remember length of warranty does not equal reliability.... Inexpensive is not a good sign either-of course paying more does not equal more reliability. I would NEVER touch a Hyundai after seeing their first gen cars-they have improved greatly but they cut corners badly before....
"Credit card companies do this, because they're on the hook for any fraud over 50 bucks."
Technically, yes it will cost them money. But how much money do they really lose? Any fraudulent charges get eaten by the MERCHANT, not the CC company, remember. Once a bank has transferred the money, it may not be recoverable. An actual loss.
In any case, I doubt they will spend more money on prevention than they feel they will lose through fraud. After all, they can raise their rates and fees pretty much at will to make up for any loss. That banks don't do it, implies that there is not a large problem (to their profit).
"(which is really rather surprising considering banks never allow themselves to be on the losing end)"
Oh, don't worry about the banks. They aren't going to lose money. Maybe on certain transactions. But there is a reason they charge high fees and interest rates....