Being unable to satisfy all of your demand is literally the opposite of being the end of a business. It's an existential requirement for a business. If you satisfy all the demand, and therefore have no demand left, you go out of business because you're not generating any more revenues.
Apart from that, you were right on everything. Well done!
In which case, how do you know he's a "yobbo"? What's the point of being all snooty and first-principles about things if you're not willing to apply the same standard to yourself?
Depends on what you think the obvious issues are. To me, the obvious issues are that this company behaved in an exceptionally unethical manner, and both it and other companies in the same industry need a strong disincentive, or they will do the same again.
Foxconn has been trying to break into retail sales since at least 2010. I'm not sure Apple is quaking in its boots about this threat just yet. There may be a little more to the business model than knowing how to assemble components.
You know, it's difficult to take someone seriously when they have a clever clever nick that's spelled incorrectly.
It's also difficult when they parade a series of one-liners they evidently believe are case-closed, rock-solid, zingers, but are in fact a crock of shit.
The problem voter ID laws are trying to solve is "how do we make it difficult for people to vote for left of centre parties while convincing dumbshit voters that's not what we're doing?". And you, my friend, are proof positive that they've been very successful. Congratulations.
What problem does picture ID help you solve? Who has the time to drive round to dozens of different polling stations and impersonate someone (who the ballot official may know, and who may already have voted). And how would that swing an election anyway?
On the other hand, picture ID obviously does create some problems. US and UK citizens are not required to have ID by the state. But they do have a right to vote. So now they are having their right to vote qualified. That's not OK. The fact that the qualification creates additional bars (cost, time, effort) makes things worse.
It does feel like things are much worse in the last 18months or so. It's this new phenomenon of comments where people are patently unaware of under-cutting their own arguments.
This "a plague on both their houses" bullshit is so transparently risible. As David Sedaris put it:
"I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
Jesus, this is so confused it's difficult to know where to start. Let's just pick up on two points: 1. It is literally impossible for a layperson to "think" their way into knowing whether a medicine is safe and effective. You cannot even be sure that the pill in front of you is the pill it purports to be, much less know whether statistical power was reached during the trials, whether the I/E criteria were appropriate, whether that particular batch was manufactured in accordance with GMP guidance on stability testing, whether the PIL explains the risks in a validated manner, or whether the dosage is what it purports to be but is in fact double or half. And if that drug is, say, insulin, then finding out you should have somehow "thought harder" about all this will be a bit pointless, because you'll already have had your hypoglycaemic attack and will be unconscious in hospital. 2. What is this clever distinction you're trying to draw between regulation and prosecution? They're not the same category of thing. Is it between the civil and criminal law, with the latter good and the former bad? Why? This makes no earthly sense.
There is no reason why penicillin couldn't have been invented by privately funded research.
But privately funded research did not, in fact, develop penicillin. And the development of penicillin was one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time and required organisation on a scale only feasible by government.
I'd have a lot more respect for you if you lived your principles the way a vegan does and forswore all use of products and services where the meddling state has had a hand. As a bonus, you'd be dead very soon, which would please everyone bar your mum. And maybe her too.
Clinical trials just don't work like that.They have complex inclusion / exclusion criteria, need to achieve statistical power, have strict conditions for adherence, must be overseen by a PI, etc. They can't just randomly recruit various desperate patients in an uncontrolled way.
That's lovely for you. Interestingly, quite a lot of the rest of us are keener on the idea of not dying while trying to find out whether a particular manufacturer has scammed us on the safety of their products, and are happy for the government to regulate to make this happen. In fact, so many of us think this way that not a single place exists on the entire planet that functions according to your Ayn Rand wank-fest description.
What a crock of shit. Every single study of the subject has found a large, sometimes massive increase in rates of depression (and anxiety and PTSD and bedwetting and many other forms of psychological trauma) among those living in war zones (and refugees, too). Unsurprisingly, having your home blown up, seeing your mother raped, being forced to flee with nothing but the clothes on your back, etc etc has a very bad effect on your mental health.
"I think the internet has reached max stupidity." Never a truer word spoken.
This is a great story you're telling yourself, but it's not true. Which is kinda the point. For example, poor people in the US do not have better health care than they did 30 years ago, not least because it's more difficult to access and much more expensive.
Why would you think that's his position? It's an absurd position. It's a strawman. His position -- obviously -- is that Obama had no practical choice in the matter, what with considering himself bound by the norms of political convention that characterised all presidencies bar the current shitshow (plus the reality that his appointee needed approval by the Senate).
Slashdot Mirror
Um, that's not what marginal costs means. You're trying to be witty but you just sound like an ignoramus.
Being unable to satisfy all of your demand is literally the opposite of being the end of a business. It's an existential requirement for a business. If you satisfy all the demand, and therefore have no demand left, you go out of business because you're not generating any more revenues.
Apart from that, you were right on everything. Well done!
Kinda helps to understand concepts such as marginal costs if you want to talk about profitability, no?
Not only is Scots law distinct from the law in England & Wales, it is famously distinct to the point that juries in trials can return a third verdict.
Why don't you go find out what it is, and then come back and apologise to everyone for thinking you knew better, when you really really didn't.
In which case, how do you know he's a "yobbo"? What's the point of being all snooty and first-principles about things if you're not willing to apply the same standard to yourself?
Depends on what you think the obvious issues are. To me, the obvious issues are that this company behaved in an exceptionally unethical manner, and both it and other companies in the same industry need a strong disincentive, or they will do the same again.
Foxconn has been trying to break into retail sales since at least 2010. I'm not sure Apple is quaking in its boots about this threat just yet. There may be a little more to the business model than knowing how to assemble components.
Also, when they Randomly capitalise a letter, as though apeing the writing conventions of the 17th century somehow adds weight to their argument.
You know, it's difficult to take someone seriously when they have a clever clever nick that's spelled incorrectly.
It's also difficult when they parade a series of one-liners they evidently believe are case-closed, rock-solid, zingers, but are in fact a crock of shit.
The problem voter ID laws are trying to solve is "how do we make it difficult for people to vote for left of centre parties while convincing dumbshit voters that's not what we're doing?". And you, my friend, are proof positive that they've been very successful. Congratulations.
What problem does picture ID help you solve? Who has the time to drive round to dozens of different polling stations and impersonate someone (who the ballot official may know, and who may already have voted). And how would that swing an election anyway?
On the other hand, picture ID obviously does create some problems. US and UK citizens are not required to have ID by the state. But they do have a right to vote. So now they are having their right to vote qualified. That's not OK. The fact that the qualification creates additional bars (cost, time, effort) makes things worse.
Do you think your comment somehow has more impact the second time round? Especially when you quote the part I was not responding too?
It does feel like things are much worse in the last 18months or so. It's this new phenomenon of comments where people are patently unaware of under-cutting their own arguments.
If I was as economically ignorant as you i would post anon also.>
How can someone be so stupid as to post this comment as an AC? How can anyone be so bad at thinking?
This "a plague on both their houses" bullshit is so transparently risible. As David Sedaris put it:
"I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?"
Que?
It's just a point-of-sales terminal. Use Apple Pay and relax. And the London mayor is really not part of "the government"
Jesus, this is so confused it's difficult to know where to start. Let's just pick up on two points:
1. It is literally impossible for a layperson to "think" their way into knowing whether a medicine is safe and effective. You cannot even be sure that the pill in front of you is the pill it purports to be, much less know whether statistical power was reached during the trials, whether the I/E criteria were appropriate, whether that particular batch was manufactured in accordance with GMP guidance on stability testing, whether the PIL explains the risks in a validated manner, or whether the dosage is what it purports to be but is in fact double or half. And if that drug is, say, insulin, then finding out you should have somehow "thought harder" about all this will be a bit pointless, because you'll already have had your hypoglycaemic attack and will be unconscious in hospital.
2. What is this clever distinction you're trying to draw between regulation and prosecution? They're not the same category of thing. Is it between the civil and criminal law, with the latter good and the former bad? Why? This makes no earthly sense.
There is no reason why penicillin couldn't have been invented by privately funded research.
But privately funded research did not, in fact, develop penicillin. And the development of penicillin was one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time and required organisation on a scale only feasible by government.
I'd have a lot more respect for you if you lived your principles the way a vegan does and forswore all use of products and services where the meddling state has had a hand. As a bonus, you'd be dead very soon, which would please everyone bar your mum. And maybe her too.
Clinical trials just don't work like that.They have complex inclusion / exclusion criteria, need to achieve statistical power, have strict conditions for adherence, must be overseen by a PI, etc. They can't just randomly recruit various desperate patients in an uncontrolled way.
That's lovely for you. Interestingly, quite a lot of the rest of us are keener on the idea of not dying while trying to find out whether a particular manufacturer has scammed us on the safety of their products, and are happy for the government to regulate to make this happen. In fact, so many of us think this way that not a single place exists on the entire planet that functions according to your Ayn Rand wank-fest description.
What kind of arsehole thinks the state never get the job done right? Are you even aware of who developed penicillin? The state, you fucking idiot.
"People in a war zone don't get depressed"
What a crock of shit. Every single study of the subject has found a large, sometimes massive increase in rates of depression (and anxiety and PTSD and bedwetting and many other forms of psychological trauma) among those living in war zones (and refugees, too). Unsurprisingly, having your home blown up, seeing your mother raped, being forced to flee with nothing but the clothes on your back, etc etc has a very bad effect on your mental health.
"I think the internet has reached max stupidity."
Never a truer word spoken.
This is a great story you're telling yourself, but it's not true. Which is kinda the point. For example, poor people in the US do not have better health care than they did 30 years ago, not least because it's more difficult to access and much more expensive.
Why would you think that's his position? It's an absurd position. It's a strawman. His position -- obviously -- is that Obama had no practical choice in the matter, what with considering himself bound by the norms of political convention that characterised all presidencies bar the current shitshow (plus the reality that his appointee needed approval by the Senate).