If you've been using it then you already have it. If you haven't then you are no worse off with it not being able to do something you weren't doing anyway.
You charge whatever the market will bear, maybe a lower price makes it up on volume so there's some art to it.
It's only price fixing if multiple manufacturers colluded, for which the fact that the device costs way more than the component parts isn't evidence.
How do you measure the "component" cost for a drug? Is it the 50c worth of chemicals in it? Or does it also include the millions of dollars spent on clinical trials? Or does it also include the millions more dollars spent on clinical trials in the same domain by the same company of compounds which failed the trial at some step? What about failed trials of other drugs for unrelated indications? Failed trials of that drug for other indications? Insurance against the product being found to cause cancer in the future? etc, etc...
If the government wasn't pouring money into insurance companies, via stupid tax incentives, then insurance companies wouldn't be pouring it into medical care, who wouldn't be pouring it into pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Why not stop it at the first step instead of the last? Especially since it's orders of magnitude simpler - remove one stupid tax rule as opposed to trying to define and enforce some labeling regime.
And yet every person in my shared office in the late 90s who used a proportional font for programming also mainly programmed in python. And of course the examples in TFA are python, so that makes 100% of the people I know and don't know who claim to use proportional fonts for programming are also python programmers.
A proportional font has no effect at all on leading spaces, which are the only ones that matter in python in ways they don't in most other languages.
They've blown up buses, trains, hotels, embassies, etc, etc.
9/11 saw planes used as a force magnifier by hitting buildings with them - but that's unlikely to succeed again.
What planes give you, that justifies some attempt from terrorists to get through the tighter security, is that a small bomb can kill everyone on board - the same size bomb elsewhere (even in the middle of a crowd - like at a security checkpoint at an airport) won't kill the same number.
Avoiding violence towards civilians is nice and all, but if Baghdad was carpet bombed the current occupation would have seen a lot fewer American deaths.
What was anti-war propaganda? That the people don't like seeing dead soldiers or that given less public pressure against using force we would likely use more? Both claims don't seem to be either pro or anti war to me...
Take Dresden as an example, the allies dropped about 4000 tons of bombs. Now they sued incendiaries as well as high explosives for that firestorm effect. But lets just say that a carpet bombing attach uses 4000 tons of conventional explosives.
If you used Mk 84s that would be $1.25 million worth of bombs dropped. Which would buy you one AGM-86C cruise missile.
Yes the planes and pilots and support staff all cost money too, and you need less of them. Still I can't see smart bomb attacks being cheaper than carpet bombing currently. Of course politically and war-crimes wise you can't carpet bomb anymore anyway so it's a moot point...
I would prefer carpet bombing in fact, since that results in less deaths to our side (assuming we are doing the side doing the bombing).
And where did did you pull the ridiculous conclusion that I like Obama or think that all wars (or even any wars) are bad from?
I just don't see it reducing costs. I see it increasing military spending because it removes one of the two big restrictions on military action: dealing with dead American soldiers and the people not liking that. Leaving just the one: war costs money.
That seems unlikely. They are more expensive than land mines and shouldn't try to kill people their own side. So they are easier to recover and worth recovering.
They are also unlikely to be implemented as "suicide bombers" so they'll run out of ammo/power anyway.
And given keeping your tech out of the hands of enemies is a normal military goal you aren't going to just leave high tech robots around waiting to be studied by others (though that is an argument for including a suicide bomber feature).
Sure if you like inflation in the triple digits, it'd be just wonderful.
Israel isn't a good comparison they run a small trade deficit (as opposed to a damn huge one) and have a positive current account balance (as opposed to a huge negative one).Their reserves are also larger than their foreign debt, so they could actually pay back their loans without having to borrow yet more money (whereas the US has to roll over its debt - the US does have the huge advantage that its debt is in US dollars and they can just print it up tomorrow if they wanted too).
And not taking every one of those into account makes it not a preview somehow?
And yes having someone draw a picture of what the camera was going to take a photo of would also be a preview. It would just be stupidly expensive and of less use than a view finder.
Yes, we should force companies to make sound business decisions. Because the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind know how to run an internet store better than Amazon, sell software better than Microsoft, produce fuels better than Exxon.
Actually why don't we just nationalize every business in the US and assign them to those two entities to run?
Real estate doesn't do that well in times of "massive inflation". It isn't exportable and hence there's a limit on price that lots of other things don't have.
A farmer can grow his corn and export it overseas where people can afford to pay a lot more (because in terms of their currency the price hasn't inflated). But a real estate owner can't export rental properties (in most markets anyway, in a tourist area you effectively can) and hence the rent he can get is limited by what people in the area can afford.
So food and energy prices skyrocket eating up a larger portion of people's income leaving a smaller portion left for rent.
They still do go up, just not as fast as other things. And since bank's will give you 5:1 leverage or even 30:1 if you do an FHA loan you can likely make up the difference on that.
Talk about cherry picking, 2000 was the year with the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s, so surprise surprise now during a recession it is higher than the 50 year minimum.
And trying to go back 200 years destroys your argument anyway. In fact you only have to go back 60 or so to see that women entered the workforce - increasing the number of people wanting to work dramatically and yet unemployment didn't hit 40%.
And ignoring the cherry picking what changed is that the unsustainability of a "service" economy revealed itself
Then your sense of smell and bullshit detection is faulty.
What makes trials expensive is that the vast majority of drugs don't work or have too severe side effects. And you don't find that out until after you've spent some money.
So yes, the actual dollars spent on "wonder drug X" is not $1 billion. But once you also count the other 1000 drugs that didn't make it (and were indistinguishable from "wonder drug X" at the start) you've spent that much.
But in this case $60 million might do it. Of course if it fails trials for some reason (and does so later rather than sooner) then that $60 million becomes $0. And chances are it will fail in trials.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've been using it then you already have it. If you haven't then you are no worse off with it not being able to do something you weren't doing anyway.
http://handbrake.fr/?article=10
Or you could just use the old version...
Yes, because medical devices aren't regulated at all at the moment.
You charge whatever the market will bear, maybe a lower price makes it up on volume so there's some art to it.
It's only price fixing if multiple manufacturers colluded, for which the fact that the device costs way more than the component parts isn't evidence.
How do you measure the "component" cost for a drug? Is it the 50c worth of chemicals in it? Or does it also include the millions of dollars spent on clinical trials? Or does it also include the millions more dollars spent on clinical trials in the same domain by the same company of compounds which failed the trial at some step? What about failed trials of other drugs for unrelated indications? Failed trials of that drug for other indications? Insurance against the product being found to cause cancer in the future? etc, etc...
If the government wasn't pouring money into insurance companies, via stupid tax incentives, then insurance companies wouldn't be pouring it into medical care, who wouldn't be pouring it into pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Why not stop it at the first step instead of the last? Especially since it's orders of magnitude simpler - remove one stupid tax rule as opposed to trying to define and enforce some labeling regime.
Again, who cares about "a good preview feature". It's just a preview, I never claimed good.
And yet every person in my shared office in the late 90s who used a proportional font for programming also mainly programmed in python. And of course the examples in TFA are python, so that makes 100% of the people I know and don't know who claim to use proportional fonts for programming are also python programmers.
A proportional font has no effect at all on leading spaces, which are the only ones that matter in python in ways they don't in most other languages.
So why would it matter to python programmers?
Bullshit.
Why have terrorists launched attacks against non-US entities then? In poor countries even.
Obviously I want to improve on that.
Terrorists aren't obsessed with that.
They've blown up buses, trains, hotels, embassies, etc, etc.
9/11 saw planes used as a force magnifier by hitting buildings with them - but that's unlikely to succeed again.
What planes give you, that justifies some attempt from terrorists to get through the tighter security, is that a small bomb can kill everyone on board - the same size bomb elsewhere (even in the middle of a crowd - like at a security checkpoint at an airport) won't kill the same number.
Avoiding violence towards civilians is nice and all, but if Baghdad was carpet bombed the current occupation would have seen a lot fewer American deaths.
What was anti-war propaganda? That the people don't like seeing dead soldiers or that given less public pressure against using force we would likely use more? Both claims don't seem to be either pro or anti war to me...
Take Dresden as an example, the allies dropped about 4000 tons of bombs. Now they sued incendiaries as well as high explosives for that firestorm effect. But lets just say that a carpet bombing attach uses 4000 tons of conventional explosives.
If you used Mk 84s that would be $1.25 million worth of bombs dropped. Which would buy you one AGM-86C cruise missile.
Yes the planes and pilots and support staff all cost money too, and you need less of them. Still I can't see smart bomb attacks being cheaper than carpet bombing currently. Of course politically and war-crimes wise you can't carpet bomb anymore anyway so it's a moot point...
I would prefer carpet bombing in fact, since that results in less deaths to our side (assuming we are doing the side doing the bombing).
And where did did you pull the ridiculous conclusion that I like Obama or think that all wars (or even any wars) are bad from?
I just don't see it reducing costs. I see it increasing military spending because it removes one of the two big restrictions on military action: dealing with dead American soldiers and the people not liking that. Leaving just the one: war costs money.
No it means less dead soldiers on our side and hence less public pressure against whatever the war is.
Which means more wars and more money for the military and their contractors.
That seems unlikely. They are more expensive than land mines and shouldn't try to kill people their own side. So they are easier to recover and worth recovering.
They are also unlikely to be implemented as "suicide bombers" so they'll run out of ammo/power anyway.
And given keeping your tech out of the hands of enemies is a normal military goal you aren't going to just leave high tech robots around waiting to be studied by others (though that is an argument for including a suicide bomber feature).
Sure if you like inflation in the triple digits, it'd be just wonderful.
Israel isn't a good comparison they run a small trade deficit (as opposed to a damn huge one) and have a positive current account balance (as opposed to a huge negative one).Their reserves are also larger than their foreign debt, so they could actually pay back their loans without having to borrow yet more money (whereas the US has to roll over its debt - the US does have the huge advantage that its debt is in US dollars and they can just print it up tomorrow if they wanted too).
And not taking every one of those into account makes it not a preview somehow?
And yes having someone draw a picture of what the camera was going to take a photo of would also be a preview. It would just be stupidly expensive and of less use than a view finder.
If china isn't exporting as much to us, then there is less upward pressure on the value of the yuan.
Which means they don't need to buy as many dollars to artificially keep the exchange rate pseudo-pegged.
Which means they don't buy as many US treasuries.
Which means either interests rates rise on treasuries and government can't afford to pay it's mega-ARM or the Fed prints the difference.
Which means the US dollar collapses.
It's the slower version of China dumping all its treasuries on the open market tomorrow.
Basically the US can't afford to do anything about such things. China has, essentially, won already.
Which is the bloody definition of preview.
You look in the view finder and you see a preview of the picture the camera will take.
Well aside for a complete implosion of the economy and the dollar collapsing to be worth nothing, yeah it won't hurt at all!
Yes, we should force companies to make sound business decisions. Because the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind know how to run an internet store better than Amazon, sell software better than Microsoft, produce fuels better than Exxon.
Actually why don't we just nationalize every business in the US and assign them to those two entities to run?
Real estate doesn't do that well in times of "massive inflation". It isn't exportable and hence there's a limit on price that lots of other things don't have.
A farmer can grow his corn and export it overseas where people can afford to pay a lot more (because in terms of their currency the price hasn't inflated). But a real estate owner can't export rental properties (in most markets anyway, in a tourist area you effectively can) and hence the rent he can get is limited by what people in the area can afford.
So food and energy prices skyrocket eating up a larger portion of people's income leaving a smaller portion left for rent.
They still do go up, just not as fast as other things. And since bank's will give you 5:1 leverage or even 30:1 if you do an FHA loan you can likely make up the difference on that.
Talk about cherry picking, 2000 was the year with the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s, so surprise surprise now during a recession it is higher than the 50 year minimum.
And trying to go back 200 years destroys your argument anyway. In fact you only have to go back 60 or so to see that women entered the workforce - increasing the number of people wanting to work dramatically and yet unemployment didn't hit 40%.
And ignoring the cherry picking what changed is that the unsustainability of a "service" economy revealed itself
My father's wife isn't my mother, does that mean I demonize her by not calling her something she is not?
Wow, you do have an amazingly closed small mind.
Then your sense of smell and bullshit detection is faulty.
What makes trials expensive is that the vast majority of drugs don't work or have too severe side effects. And you don't find that out until after you've spent some money.
So yes, the actual dollars spent on "wonder drug X" is not $1 billion. But once you also count the other 1000 drugs that didn't make it (and were indistinguishable from "wonder drug X" at the start) you've spent that much.
But in this case $60 million might do it. Of course if it fails trials for some reason (and does so later rather than sooner) then that $60 million becomes $0. And chances are it will fail in trials.