What we also need to remember is that we could triple the minimum wage and it still won't mean shit if the rate of decline of the dollar's buying power continues to increase.
A "weak" currency is not the bad thing that many people suppose. A weak currency makes buying imports more expensive but it makes selling exports more competitive. Japan's currency is very strong right now and so they are having difficulty being competitive on cars they export from Japan. A strong yen and a weak dollar makes Japanese cars more expensive. A weak dollar makes is more cost effective for companies to locate production in the US and for US companies to export abroad. Part of the problem with trading with China is that China has taken steps to keep their currency "weak" on purpose which makes their exports cost less to buy. This is 100% intentional on the part of China and is a significant factor in why goods can be made cheaply in China. (the other big factor is their cheap labor)
Regarding minimum wage, that has little to do with the relative strength or weakness of the currency. Increasing minimum wage could affect product prices but that is independent of exchange rate costs.
They wouldn't have then adopted policies of giving speed out like candy in combat situations if it impaired performance more than they helped it.
That depends entirely on what is being impaired and what is being helped. The military has certain rather specific objectives. It's reasonable that they can find some performance enhancing drugs that aid with those objectives. However ALL drugs have side effects and it is entirely likely that soldiers performance in other areas of cognition are degraded at the same time. In combat falling asleep or being drowsy might mean getting killed which is a worse outcome than most other drug effects so a stimulant might make sense in spite of some pretty severe side effects.
Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization for recreational use.
Maybe now we'll give up the fig leaf of "medical" marijuana. It's amazing how many previously healthy people suddenly developed conditions that could only be treated by smoking weed. I don't care if people want to smoke weed but for almost all of them claiming it was for medical purposes was nothing more than an end run around the law.
Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?
Who cares what the founding fathers intended? These are the same people who declared "all men are created equal" while not giving equality to blacks or women or indians. They weren't a bunch of infallible holy wise men. We face situations today that they could not possibly have envisioned. There were no weapons of mass destruction, global communications systems, airplanes, railroads, computers or automobiles. There was no industrial scale pollution like we currently face and climate change was not a concern. Energy policies in those days concerned how much oats to feed your horse. The world is different and the laws that govern it must necessarily be different.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your premise (that the constitution has been rather abused in many places) but worrying about what the founding fathers thought is absurd. It just doesn't make logical sense to worry about what a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago might have thought.
Well, no, I can't finance the same lifestyle in Detroit at any price. It's not available in Michigan.
I'm pretty much guessing you have never actually lived in Michigan making a statement like that.
the area is bitterly cold and grey in winter without a break.
Bitterly cold? Maybe if you are a big old wimp. Grey with out a break? Yeah, not so much. Sometimes it is grey, sometimes it isn't. Comes with having 20% of the world fresh water within 80 miles of you at any time. Plus we don't have to deal with earthquakes that will level the city.
Living there year-round is not for everyone no matter how much they clean it up.
Yeah, almost 10 million people live in Michigan because it is such a hell hole...
Basically, its Wisconsin, but with a couple more feet of lake effect snow, and the eyesore / mindsore of Detroit.
Detroit proper has a population of just 700,000 people. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" don't actually live in the city itself. The Metro Detroit area is much larger (population 4 million) and actually is a nice place to live. Oakland County just to the north of Detroit has a AAA credit rating and is among the 10 wealthiest counties in the US. There is a huge amount of engineering talent in the state and the businesses that need it. (Hint, the auto industry uses a LOT of technology)
I believe Wisconsin has something like 10 lakes for every 1 lake in Michigan.
Wisconsin has about 15,000 while Michigan has over 11,000. The numbers are very similar. Please cease making up nonsense when two seconds on Google will prove you are making stuff up.
I'm fond of Detroit, but it's worth mentioning that it could be a set from Blade Runner.
The City of Detroit has a population of around 700,000 people. The Greater Detroit Metro area has about 4 million people in it. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" aren't actually from Detroit proper and the suburbs are actually pretty nice for the most part. Oakland County which is the county immediately to the north of the City of Detroit is located has a AAA credit rating and is among the wealthiest counties in the country. Furthermore Michigan is an absolutely beautiful state with lots to recommend it. The vast majority of work that is available in Detroit is no where near the run down areas that get most of the attention in the press.
Reports of the death of Detroit are greatly exaggerated.
1) Take excess power cords and shorten them to length. I have a bar power strip at the back of my desk and I shorten my power cords to length with plugs.
2) Use velcro straps and cable ties to keep cables neat, coiled and short. Bundle cables together that are going the same place. Use expandable braided sleeving where possible and be sure to melt the edges where you cut it so it doesn't fray.
3) Make your own ethernet cables and cut them to length. Color code and/or label them if you have more than a few.
4) Use a universal docking station if you have to something like a laptop that needs to be unplugged regularly.
5) Cordless mouse and/or keyboards are nice but if you have corded versions coil the cables and use the shortest path you can manage.
6) Use raceways and conduit if running cable any distance.
7) Use devices with short cables and extend them rather than using a longer cable than necessary.
8) Use patch panels and wiring closets or buy a small server rack on caster wheels if you have a lot of computers and limited space.
Would still like to see suppliers tell OEMs to go somewhere else when they try to squeeze them too much, but doubt it'll happen.
If someone is willing to take a bad deal that is their burden. We had a customer just this past year "ask" for a 5% price reduction even though they send less than $10,000 worth of business per year our way. We ignored them. Easy to do when someone is 5% of your business. Much harder when it is 50%.
Don't have too much experience with Japanese ones, though.
They come with their own challenges. Different culture, different ideas. They worry about different things and cause different problems. Pricing pressure is less of a problem but communication has (for us) been a bigger challenge.
On the notion of asking about margin and health, I notice in SCM (and other areas) that bids include statements on overall company health, requested in the RFP.
Things like that are two edged sword. If it is a genuine partnership that sort of thing is fine and probably healthy. Problem is that they ask the same questions when the customer trying to ascertain how much they can squeeze the vendor. In my experience it is usually the later. Perhaps my experience has made me a bit cynical but there is safety in a healthy skepticism.
This is not true for a great deal of maintenance. Furthermore specialized tools are often not necessary if the parts are designed sensibly. Often the manufacturer has a choice when designing it and using a specialized tool when one is not needed is an attempt at lock in. Encouraging lock in and short-cut design is a bad idea always.
If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
The logic of that does not compute. A well designed interface can greatly speed achievement of emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Standard tooling, electrical interfaces, etc can greatly reduce cost, complexity and allow engineers to focus efforts on more productive pursuits. Reinventing interfaces because of Not-Invented-Here is frankly rather stupid. Arguably using closed proprietary interfaces slows development rather than speeding it up in many cases.
Just saying what you lefties would say if you had the balls.
Ahh, I get it. You are a troll. My bad for feeding you...
However, the exact same net/gross difference applies for the second-hand one. His point was that they do still make more on the new book than the second one.
Not necessarily. First issue is that it depends very much on what price they can buy the used book. That amount varies rather significantly and you really can't just assume it is $30 a book. Given how easy it is to get steeply discounted used books through Amazon etc, odds are a bookstore can buy the book for significantly less than that. Second issue is how much of a discount they have to give to sell a used book instead of a new book. In his made up example the numbers work out in favor of new books but that isn't necessarily going to be the case in the real world. Third issue is opportunity cost. The new book is going to cost more (probably) than a used book so there is an opportunity cost associated with locking that cash up in inventory until it can be sold. Buying used books means the store has to buy fewer new books and their cost of good sold decreases. Since they are operating on relatively thin net margins this can matter quite a lot since it potentially frees up cash for other potentially profitable purposes - presuming of course that they can still sell the used book for sufficient margin in a timely manner.
In short, it's not as simple as the example makes it sound.
OEMs go to the suppliers yearly, demanding a (often contractual) reduction in price by 1-2%... whether the suppliers are able to supply the parts at the lower cost is irrelevant, and most will gladly bend over in fear of not loosing the next deal (which they'll likely also lose money on).
Actually what happens is that the lower tier suppliers price in future price reductions knowing that the OEMS will demand price reductions in future years. The suppliers aren't stupid so they price that in up front. Occasionally someone is dumb enough to not take this into account and they lose their a$$ on the job and aren't a factor the next time around. I'm a cost accountant and deal with this all the time. You pretty much have to assume between 1% and 5% give backs (amount depends on the customer) when pricing a part to a US auto supplier. I've even seen them demand retroactive discounts going back 3 years.
This really is more of a problem with the US auto makers and their bigger suppliers. Frankly the US auto makers tend to have a pretty dysfunctional relationship with their supply chain. They tend to prefer their suppliers to be right on the edge of bankruptcy if possible. The Japanese manufacturers don't tend to beat up their suppliers so much and tend to have much more of a partnership relationship. I've actually had a Japanese auto maker ask a company I worked with if they were making enough margin to be healthy. You really do not want to be a Tier 1 supplier to a US auto maker. Tier 3+ is fairly safe and there are profits to be had there.
If you assume 100% markup, then the bookstore pays $50 for a new book, and sells it for $100. Profit = $50.
You are roughly correct for the gross margins but the net profit is nowhere near $50 in your example. (Rent, utilities, staff salaries, etc) Net profit will be quite a lot lower, probably in single digits to low teens usually if the company is profitable.
Probably with a way to return purchased books to the publisher.
Virtually all new books are sold on consignment. There are a handful of very large distributors in the book industry. They sell to bookstores including Barnes & Noble as well as your school book store. Some bigger sellers like Amazon can go direct but not many others can. New books are sold on consignment with 90 day terms meaning if they don't sell within 90 days they are returned to the publisher. Realistically 90 day terms really means 120 day terms because the distributors have 90 days from the book store and then 30 more days for themselves so the publisher gets paid at best 120 days after shipping a book that there is a good chance will be returned to them unsold. Publishing books is a terrible business to be in from a cash flow standpoint.
Based on your numbers, they'll buy the used book for $30, and sell it for $75-$80 with no way to recoup cost if they aren't purchased (although they probably sell to a wholesaler or something) Profit = $45-$50
There are secondary market options for used books that cannot be sold locally. Not hugely lucrative but they are significantly better than zero. The buyers of used books have some databases which tell them they should pay $30 for Book A and $5 for Book B and shouldn't buy Book C based on what they can sell it for elsewhere. They don't just buy books blindly for a flat fee. (or if they do they are stupid)
Why would I need another card in my wallet to duplicate what my banks check card does?
Because then you can leave your debit/credit card at home. If your wallet gets lost you log into your google account and detach the credit/debit card from your google card. While you still have to replace the google card it provides a potential layer of security. Also the google card provides the same effect as having a forwarding email address. You can change the bank card behind the google card without having to go to 50 different merchants to change the card they have on file. Actually pretty convenient.
Doesn't anybody think, that every time they use their plastic, that you're giving Visa/MC 2-3% of your purchase?
You think there is no cost involved in handling cash? Cash is expensive to count, sort, deposit, track and prone to theft. Sure you are paying the credit card processors a few percent but merchants incur pretty much the same cost due to the overhead of handling cash. Seriously, cash is a major pain in the ass for merchants and that cost gets passed on to consumers. There's nothing wrong with paying cash but there is plenty of overhead involved with it.
Once a machine or process exists that can produce an output then nobody should be able to hold license to any one particular output of that device or process.
Then how to you propose to get around the problem of Free Riders? Lots of inventions require significant amounts of capital to design but are very cheap to manufacture. Drugs are the classic example. Why would anyone invest the millions to billions of dollars needed to bring a novel treatment to market if anyone can simply copy the final product for considerably less money? Same concept applies to machined parts, electronics or anything else with a large research or design component. There needs to be some form of economic protection though the exact form can vary. You want to avoid granting too many monopolies, keep them short and avoid the free rider problem.
Software is in my opinion adequately protected by copyright making patents unnecessary for machine instructions. Patents should cover tangible objects and copyright should cover text and artistic works. There is no need for patents on written works including machine instructions, mathematical algorithms, or business processes.
Now, combine multiple outputs from multiple different devices or processes and create a new device or process that can produce a new kind of output that can't be done with any existing single device or process
Logically this contradicts your above statement. Once it exists based on your logic you propose that it no longer be entitled to patent protection. I think I see where you are going and I don't dispute your premise but the logic of the argument doesn't seem quite there to me. Patents have their uses but you don't want them to be either too easy or too hard to get. Right now they appear to be too easy to get which limits innovation via the legal system - companies are granted a "temporary" monopoly much too easily. (20 years however is almost effectively forever in software) Make them too hard to get and you have to deal with the free rider problem which is just as bad and has the same stifling effect. There also needs to be an effective patent review process for cases where a patent was awarded when it shouldn't have been.
Anyone could have created Facebook, JPG rendering, one-click purchase with simply a laptop.
So what? Anyone can create a machined part in their house with a drill press which costs less than most laptops. The fact that the tools are readily available does not have any bearing on whether something made with them should be patentable. Furthermore the mere fact that in theory "anyone could have created Facebook" is belied by the fact that only one person actually did create Facebook. Just because others possess the technical skill to do something doesn't matter at all with regard to the novelty, obviousness or utility of an invention. I know how to machine all sorts of parts with a milling machine but it doesn't logically follow we shouldn't allow patents on machined parts because I theoretically might have come up with something that someone else created.
Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that software patents are an incredibly bad idea. I'm just arguing that your line of reasoning isn't a compelling argument against them. Patents were created to provide an incentive for creative works in the face of the Free Rider Problem. Software patents have the same net effect of stifling innovation as allowing Free Riders. In both cases you are removing economic incentives to create new works. Both make it economically pointless to try to bring products to market.
Stop blaming the lawyers and start blaming the people who ask them to file the lawsuits.
That's the "we were just following orders" argument and it is pretty flimsy. Basically it is arguing that they have no responsibility to consider whether their actions might be harmful before proceeding. While it is probably true that the lawyers are not the proximal cause of the problem, they do bear at least some of the blame even when they aren't the ones filing suit. Lawyers always can decline to accept the case if they believe it lack merit or be unethical.
Furthermore the lawyers themselves are often the ones responsible for initiating the legal actions. There are plenty of patent trolls who have little or no technical expertise or production capacity. They only exist to threaten others with lawsuits and collect royalties.
What would you do to 'go geek' if you had a major remodel on your hands?
Infrastructure. Get as much future-proof wiring in the walls as you can. Cat 6 or Cat 7, hdmi, speaker wire, coax, fiber optic, power, etc. Multiple drops, whole house surge protection, wiring closets, cooling ducts, conduit for future runs. Here's the thing, you don't know what technology you are going to have available down the road and whatever you buy now is going to obsolete in just a few years. But the equipment is is easy to change. The tough bit is to get the wiring in the walls. Worry about infrastructure and the rest will be MUCH easier down the road.
Like the preps/jocks/etc. when I grew up didn't affect how arrogant I became after post-grad?
You can't control what other people do but you (should) have total control over how you react to it. If you were or are arrogant then that is entirely on you. You don't get to blame others for your arrogance because you and only you control that. I used to be a pretty arrogant guy but I had to own that. Nobody else was to blame for my behavior. Yeah, I got picked on like pretty much everyone else but the thing I had to control was how I reacted to it. Once I did that the results turned out consistently much better.
IMO, rectify it with logic. Ask them about a medical issue they wont know, or perhaps a plumbing problem.
Then you get the Sheldon Cooper effect whereby they dismiss the information as trivial and/or uninteresting. Never underestimate the extent of youth and arrogance.
Personal preference but nothing wrong with that. I used to prefer a physical keyboard but then I realized it is just a whole bunch more stuff that can (and does) break. I don't really miss not having a physical keyboard and I do like not having to carry the extra bulk of one around. Personal preference however and I get the appeal of a physical keyboard.
- Unified inbox; everything is in one spot. - Different modes; EG: when I go to bed I have a mode called "bedtime" that only alerts me if something important from someone important comes in. - Contact based alerts. So during the day when I'm at work my phone will only "ring" if it's my mom (she has cancer, so lay off) or my wife (only calls if it's important, sends a text otherwise).
I can do all of this on an iPhone and I'm pretty sure most of the better Android phones as well.
- Canadian company. Home country pride:)
You're proud of using an inferior product just because it was designed by a Canadian company? I live in the US but I'd never buy an inferior US product just because it was made here. When the Blackberry was genuinely the best product available a few years back I get that argument but now it makes little sense.
As for other phones, I have looked but not willing to move at this time. I am very excited for BB10 and hope it will allow RIM to mount some kind of comeback.
If you are fine with what you have and don't care about the bits you are missing out on then that is fine. That said I wouldn't hold my breath on BB10 making much of a difference. We're not going to see it for another 4-6 months and that is an eternity in this business. Once people dump BB they aren't likely to come back unless BB10 provides something that simply cannot be gotten from iOS or Android. I think RIM is headed either for bankruptcy or a buyout but I just don't see a comeback in the cards. Their three largest competitors (Apple, Microsoft and Google) have gigantic war chests and RIM doesn't. I don't really see any reasonable scenario where RIM makes a real comeback.
Finally; it's just a phone people - there are bigger things in life to worry about.
Actually it isn't just a phone. These days they are computers that just happen to be able to make calls. I use my smartphone as an alarm clock, news feed, camera, email, messaging, games, research, calendaring, calculator, reminders, music, podcasts, home automation control, shopping, navigation, video and oh yeah, making telephone calls. Saying it is "just a phone" really isn't even close to being true anymore.
A phone is not just a phone...It hasn't been for a long time. Apple would be out of business if that was true.
I don't know that Apple would be "out of business" but agreed that a phone is no longer just a phone.
Phones are Jewellery and have been for a long time.
Kind of went off the rails with this bit of your argument. Your assertion that phones are merely jewelry could only be true if people use their phones for no purpose other than decoration. Maybe you know some people who do that but I've never met any. Phones aren't phones because they are now computers that also make phone calls. Any decorative purpose they might serve is mostly incidental to why they aren't just phones anymore.
If you want a no nonsense device with a physical keyboard and superior email and message handling, a BB is still the best.
"No nonsense"? Have you actually used a Blackberry? They do a few things rather well but overall they are almost obnoxiously annoying to use. I'll take any of the better Android phones or an iPhone over any Blackberry any day of the week. My mother uses a fairly recent BB and good grief is it irritating. Oh it can email fine but heaven forbid you want to do anything besides messaging with it including changing settings.
You also have to remember that the devices it is competing against are general purpose computers which happen to be able to make calls. The BB still is in a world where email is the so-called killer app. Things have changed and just email isn't enough anymore. Even if we concede that the BB is better at dealing with email and messaging, the difference is marginal for most people. The advantages of the BB don't even come close to outweighing its deficiencies.
Slashdot Mirror
What we also need to remember is that we could triple the minimum wage and it still won't mean shit if the rate of decline of the dollar's buying power continues to increase.
A "weak" currency is not the bad thing that many people suppose. A weak currency makes buying imports more expensive but it makes selling exports more competitive. Japan's currency is very strong right now and so they are having difficulty being competitive on cars they export from Japan. A strong yen and a weak dollar makes Japanese cars more expensive. A weak dollar makes is more cost effective for companies to locate production in the US and for US companies to export abroad. Part of the problem with trading with China is that China has taken steps to keep their currency "weak" on purpose which makes their exports cost less to buy. This is 100% intentional on the part of China and is a significant factor in why goods can be made cheaply in China. (the other big factor is their cheap labor)
Regarding minimum wage, that has little to do with the relative strength or weakness of the currency. Increasing minimum wage could affect product prices but that is independent of exchange rate costs.
They wouldn't have then adopted policies of giving speed out like candy in combat situations if it impaired performance more than they helped it.
That depends entirely on what is being impaired and what is being helped. The military has certain rather specific objectives. It's reasonable that they can find some performance enhancing drugs that aid with those objectives. However ALL drugs have side effects and it is entirely likely that soldiers performance in other areas of cognition are degraded at the same time. In combat falling asleep or being drowsy might mean getting killed which is a worse outcome than most other drug effects so a stimulant might make sense in spite of some pretty severe side effects.
Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization for recreational use.
Maybe now we'll give up the fig leaf of "medical" marijuana. It's amazing how many previously healthy people suddenly developed conditions that could only be treated by smoking weed. I don't care if people want to smoke weed but for almost all of them claiming it was for medical purposes was nothing more than an end run around the law.
Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?
Who cares what the founding fathers intended? These are the same people who declared "all men are created equal" while not giving equality to blacks or women or indians. They weren't a bunch of infallible holy wise men. We face situations today that they could not possibly have envisioned. There were no weapons of mass destruction, global communications systems, airplanes, railroads, computers or automobiles. There was no industrial scale pollution like we currently face and climate change was not a concern. Energy policies in those days concerned how much oats to feed your horse. The world is different and the laws that govern it must necessarily be different.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your premise (that the constitution has been rather abused in many places) but worrying about what the founding fathers thought is absurd. It just doesn't make logical sense to worry about what a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago might have thought.
Well, no, I can't finance the same lifestyle in Detroit at any price. It's not available in Michigan.
I'm pretty much guessing you have never actually lived in Michigan making a statement like that.
the area is bitterly cold and grey in winter without a break.
Bitterly cold? Maybe if you are a big old wimp. Grey with out a break? Yeah, not so much. Sometimes it is grey, sometimes it isn't. Comes with having 20% of the world fresh water within 80 miles of you at any time. Plus we don't have to deal with earthquakes that will level the city.
Living there year-round is not for everyone no matter how much they clean it up.
Yeah, almost 10 million people live in Michigan because it is such a hell hole...
As a southern California resident, I like my snow way up on the mountains, far away from me. It's really pretty when it's way over there.
Wimp. Personally I prefer a bit of snow over living on a major fault line.
Basically, its Wisconsin, but with a couple more feet of lake effect snow, and the eyesore / mindsore of Detroit.
Detroit proper has a population of just 700,000 people. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" don't actually live in the city itself. The Metro Detroit area is much larger (population 4 million) and actually is a nice place to live. Oakland County just to the north of Detroit has a AAA credit rating and is among the 10 wealthiest counties in the US. There is a huge amount of engineering talent in the state and the businesses that need it. (Hint, the auto industry uses a LOT of technology)
I believe Wisconsin has something like 10 lakes for every 1 lake in Michigan.
Wisconsin has about 15,000 while Michigan has over 11,000. The numbers are very similar. Please cease making up nonsense when two seconds on Google will prove you are making stuff up.
I'm fond of Detroit, but it's worth mentioning that it could be a set from Blade Runner.
The City of Detroit has a population of around 700,000 people. The Greater Detroit Metro area has about 4 million people in it. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" aren't actually from Detroit proper and the suburbs are actually pretty nice for the most part. Oakland County which is the county immediately to the north of the City of Detroit is located has a AAA credit rating and is among the wealthiest counties in the country. Furthermore Michigan is an absolutely beautiful state with lots to recommend it. The vast majority of work that is available in Detroit is no where near the run down areas that get most of the attention in the press.
Reports of the death of Detroit are greatly exaggerated.
1) Take excess power cords and shorten them to length. I have a bar power strip at the back of my desk and I shorten my power cords to length with plugs.
2) Use velcro straps and cable ties to keep cables neat, coiled and short. Bundle cables together that are going the same place. Use expandable braided sleeving where possible and be sure to melt the edges where you cut it so it doesn't fray.
3) Make your own ethernet cables and cut them to length. Color code and/or label them if you have more than a few.
4) Use a universal docking station if you have to something like a laptop that needs to be unplugged regularly.
5) Cordless mouse and/or keyboards are nice but if you have corded versions coil the cables and use the shortest path you can manage.
6) Use raceways and conduit if running cable any distance.
7) Use devices with short cables and extend them rather than using a longer cable than necessary.
8) Use patch panels and wiring closets or buy a small server rack on caster wheels if you have a lot of computers and limited space.
Would still like to see suppliers tell OEMs to go somewhere else when they try to squeeze them too much, but doubt it'll happen.
If someone is willing to take a bad deal that is their burden. We had a customer just this past year "ask" for a 5% price reduction even though they send less than $10,000 worth of business per year our way. We ignored them. Easy to do when someone is 5% of your business. Much harder when it is 50%.
Don't have too much experience with Japanese ones, though.
They come with their own challenges. Different culture, different ideas. They worry about different things and cause different problems. Pricing pressure is less of a problem but communication has (for us) been a bigger challenge.
On the notion of asking about margin and health, I notice in SCM (and other areas) that bids include statements on overall company health, requested in the RFP.
Things like that are two edged sword. If it is a genuine partnership that sort of thing is fine and probably healthy. Problem is that they ask the same questions when the customer trying to ascertain how much they can squeeze the vendor. In my experience it is usually the later. Perhaps my experience has made me a bit cynical but there is safety in a healthy skepticism.
Specialized tools are necessary for service work.
This is not true for a great deal of maintenance. Furthermore specialized tools are often not necessary if the parts are designed sensibly. Often the manufacturer has a choice when designing it and using a specialized tool when one is not needed is an attempt at lock in. Encouraging lock in and short-cut design is a bad idea always.
If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
The logic of that does not compute. A well designed interface can greatly speed achievement of emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Standard tooling, electrical interfaces, etc can greatly reduce cost, complexity and allow engineers to focus efforts on more productive pursuits. Reinventing interfaces because of Not-Invented-Here is frankly rather stupid. Arguably using closed proprietary interfaces slows development rather than speeding it up in many cases.
Just saying what you lefties would say if you had the balls.
Ahh, I get it. You are a troll. My bad for feeding you...
However, the exact same net/gross difference applies for the second-hand one. His point was that they do still make more on the new book than the second one.
Not necessarily. First issue is that it depends very much on what price they can buy the used book. That amount varies rather significantly and you really can't just assume it is $30 a book. Given how easy it is to get steeply discounted used books through Amazon etc, odds are a bookstore can buy the book for significantly less than that. Second issue is how much of a discount they have to give to sell a used book instead of a new book. In his made up example the numbers work out in favor of new books but that isn't necessarily going to be the case in the real world. Third issue is opportunity cost. The new book is going to cost more (probably) than a used book so there is an opportunity cost associated with locking that cash up in inventory until it can be sold. Buying used books means the store has to buy fewer new books and their cost of good sold decreases. Since they are operating on relatively thin net margins this can matter quite a lot since it potentially frees up cash for other potentially profitable purposes - presuming of course that they can still sell the used book for sufficient margin in a timely manner.
In short, it's not as simple as the example makes it sound.
OEMs go to the suppliers yearly, demanding a (often contractual) reduction in price by 1-2% ... whether the suppliers are able to supply the parts at the lower cost is irrelevant, and most will gladly bend over in fear of not loosing the next deal (which they'll likely also lose money on).
Actually what happens is that the lower tier suppliers price in future price reductions knowing that the OEMS will demand price reductions in future years. The suppliers aren't stupid so they price that in up front. Occasionally someone is dumb enough to not take this into account and they lose their a$$ on the job and aren't a factor the next time around. I'm a cost accountant and deal with this all the time. You pretty much have to assume between 1% and 5% give backs (amount depends on the customer) when pricing a part to a US auto supplier. I've even seen them demand retroactive discounts going back 3 years.
This really is more of a problem with the US auto makers and their bigger suppliers. Frankly the US auto makers tend to have a pretty dysfunctional relationship with their supply chain. They tend to prefer their suppliers to be right on the edge of bankruptcy if possible. The Japanese manufacturers don't tend to beat up their suppliers so much and tend to have much more of a partnership relationship. I've actually had a Japanese auto maker ask a company I worked with if they were making enough margin to be healthy. You really do not want to be a Tier 1 supplier to a US auto maker. Tier 3+ is fairly safe and there are profits to be had there.
If you assume 100% markup, then the bookstore pays $50 for a new book, and sells it for $100. Profit = $50.
You are roughly correct for the gross margins but the net profit is nowhere near $50 in your example. (Rent, utilities, staff salaries, etc) Net profit will be quite a lot lower, probably in single digits to low teens usually if the company is profitable.
Probably with a way to return purchased books to the publisher.
Virtually all new books are sold on consignment. There are a handful of very large distributors in the book industry. They sell to bookstores including Barnes & Noble as well as your school book store. Some bigger sellers like Amazon can go direct but not many others can. New books are sold on consignment with 90 day terms meaning if they don't sell within 90 days they are returned to the publisher. Realistically 90 day terms really means 120 day terms because the distributors have 90 days from the book store and then 30 more days for themselves so the publisher gets paid at best 120 days after shipping a book that there is a good chance will be returned to them unsold. Publishing books is a terrible business to be in from a cash flow standpoint.
Based on your numbers, they'll buy the used book for $30, and sell it for $75-$80 with no way to recoup cost if they aren't purchased (although they probably sell to a wholesaler or something) Profit = $45-$50
There are secondary market options for used books that cannot be sold locally. Not hugely lucrative but they are significantly better than zero. The buyers of used books have some databases which tell them they should pay $30 for Book A and $5 for Book B and shouldn't buy Book C based on what they can sell it for elsewhere. They don't just buy books blindly for a flat fee. (or if they do they are stupid)
Why would I need another card in my wallet to duplicate what my banks check card does?
Because then you can leave your debit/credit card at home. If your wallet gets lost you log into your google account and detach the credit/debit card from your google card. While you still have to replace the google card it provides a potential layer of security. Also the google card provides the same effect as having a forwarding email address. You can change the bank card behind the google card without having to go to 50 different merchants to change the card they have on file. Actually pretty convenient.
Doesn't anybody think, that every time they use their plastic, that you're giving Visa/MC 2-3% of your purchase?
You think there is no cost involved in handling cash? Cash is expensive to count, sort, deposit, track and prone to theft. Sure you are paying the credit card processors a few percent but merchants incur pretty much the same cost due to the overhead of handling cash. Seriously, cash is a major pain in the ass for merchants and that cost gets passed on to consumers. There's nothing wrong with paying cash but there is plenty of overhead involved with it.
Once a machine or process exists that can produce an output then nobody should be able to hold license to any one particular output of that device or process.
Then how to you propose to get around the problem of Free Riders? Lots of inventions require significant amounts of capital to design but are very cheap to manufacture. Drugs are the classic example. Why would anyone invest the millions to billions of dollars needed to bring a novel treatment to market if anyone can simply copy the final product for considerably less money? Same concept applies to machined parts, electronics or anything else with a large research or design component. There needs to be some form of economic protection though the exact form can vary. You want to avoid granting too many monopolies, keep them short and avoid the free rider problem.
Software is in my opinion adequately protected by copyright making patents unnecessary for machine instructions. Patents should cover tangible objects and copyright should cover text and artistic works. There is no need for patents on written works including machine instructions, mathematical algorithms, or business processes.
Now, combine multiple outputs from multiple different devices or processes and create a new device or process that can produce a new kind of output that can't be done with any existing single device or process
Logically this contradicts your above statement. Once it exists based on your logic you propose that it no longer be entitled to patent protection. I think I see where you are going and I don't dispute your premise but the logic of the argument doesn't seem quite there to me. Patents have their uses but you don't want them to be either too easy or too hard to get. Right now they appear to be too easy to get which limits innovation via the legal system - companies are granted a "temporary" monopoly much too easily. (20 years however is almost effectively forever in software) Make them too hard to get and you have to deal with the free rider problem which is just as bad and has the same stifling effect. There also needs to be an effective patent review process for cases where a patent was awarded when it shouldn't have been.
Anyone could have created Facebook, JPG rendering, one-click purchase with simply a laptop.
So what? Anyone can create a machined part in their house with a drill press which costs less than most laptops. The fact that the tools are readily available does not have any bearing on whether something made with them should be patentable. Furthermore the mere fact that in theory "anyone could have created Facebook" is belied by the fact that only one person actually did create Facebook. Just because others possess the technical skill to do something doesn't matter at all with regard to the novelty, obviousness or utility of an invention. I know how to machine all sorts of parts with a milling machine but it doesn't logically follow we shouldn't allow patents on machined parts because I theoretically might have come up with something that someone else created.
Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that software patents are an incredibly bad idea. I'm just arguing that your line of reasoning isn't a compelling argument against them. Patents were created to provide an incentive for creative works in the face of the Free Rider Problem. Software patents have the same net effect of stifling innovation as allowing Free Riders. In both cases you are removing economic incentives to create new works. Both make it economically pointless to try to bring products to market.
Stop blaming the lawyers and start blaming the people who ask them to file the lawsuits.
That's the "we were just following orders" argument and it is pretty flimsy. Basically it is arguing that they have no responsibility to consider whether their actions might be harmful before proceeding. While it is probably true that the lawyers are not the proximal cause of the problem, they do bear at least some of the blame even when they aren't the ones filing suit. Lawyers always can decline to accept the case if they believe it lack merit or be unethical.
Furthermore the lawyers themselves are often the ones responsible for initiating the legal actions. There are plenty of patent trolls who have little or no technical expertise or production capacity. They only exist to threaten others with lawsuits and collect royalties.
What would you do to 'go geek' if you had a major remodel on your hands?
Infrastructure. Get as much future-proof wiring in the walls as you can. Cat 6 or Cat 7, hdmi, speaker wire, coax, fiber optic, power, etc. Multiple drops, whole house surge protection, wiring closets, cooling ducts, conduit for future runs. Here's the thing, you don't know what technology you are going to have available down the road and whatever you buy now is going to obsolete in just a few years. But the equipment is is easy to change. The tough bit is to get the wiring in the walls. Worry about infrastructure and the rest will be MUCH easier down the road.
Like the preps/jocks/etc. when I grew up didn't affect how arrogant I became after post-grad?
You can't control what other people do but you (should) have total control over how you react to it. If you were or are arrogant then that is entirely on you. You don't get to blame others for your arrogance because you and only you control that. I used to be a pretty arrogant guy but I had to own that. Nobody else was to blame for my behavior. Yeah, I got picked on like pretty much everyone else but the thing I had to control was how I reacted to it. Once I did that the results turned out consistently much better.
IMO, rectify it with logic.
Ask them about a medical issue they wont know, or perhaps a plumbing problem.
Then you get the Sheldon Cooper effect whereby they dismiss the information as trivial and/or uninteresting. Never underestimate the extent of youth and arrogance.
- I love the keyboard!
Personal preference but nothing wrong with that. I used to prefer a physical keyboard but then I realized it is just a whole bunch more stuff that can (and does) break. I don't really miss not having a physical keyboard and I do like not having to carry the extra bulk of one around. Personal preference however and I get the appeal of a physical keyboard.
- Unified inbox; everything is in one spot.
- Different modes; EG: when I go to bed I have a mode called "bedtime" that only alerts me if something important from someone important comes in.
- Contact based alerts. So during the day when I'm at work my phone will only "ring" if it's my mom (she has cancer, so lay off) or my wife (only calls if it's important, sends a text otherwise).
I can do all of this on an iPhone and I'm pretty sure most of the better Android phones as well.
- Canadian company. Home country pride :)
You're proud of using an inferior product just because it was designed by a Canadian company? I live in the US but I'd never buy an inferior US product just because it was made here. When the Blackberry was genuinely the best product available a few years back I get that argument but now it makes little sense.
As for other phones, I have looked but not willing to move at this time. I am very excited for BB10 and hope it will allow RIM to mount some kind of comeback.
If you are fine with what you have and don't care about the bits you are missing out on then that is fine. That said I wouldn't hold my breath on BB10 making much of a difference. We're not going to see it for another 4-6 months and that is an eternity in this business. Once people dump BB they aren't likely to come back unless BB10 provides something that simply cannot be gotten from iOS or Android. I think RIM is headed either for bankruptcy or a buyout but I just don't see a comeback in the cards. Their three largest competitors (Apple, Microsoft and Google) have gigantic war chests and RIM doesn't. I don't really see any reasonable scenario where RIM makes a real comeback.
Finally; it's just a phone people - there are bigger things in life to worry about.
Actually it isn't just a phone. These days they are computers that just happen to be able to make calls. I use my smartphone as an alarm clock, news feed, camera, email, messaging, games, research, calendaring, calculator, reminders, music, podcasts, home automation control, shopping, navigation, video and oh yeah, making telephone calls. Saying it is "just a phone" really isn't even close to being true anymore.
A phone is not just a phone...It hasn't been for a long time. Apple would be out of business if that was true.
I don't know that Apple would be "out of business" but agreed that a phone is no longer just a phone.
Phones are Jewellery and have been for a long time.
Kind of went off the rails with this bit of your argument. Your assertion that phones are merely jewelry could only be true if people use their phones for no purpose other than decoration. Maybe you know some people who do that but I've never met any. Phones aren't phones because they are now computers that also make phone calls. Any decorative purpose they might serve is mostly incidental to why they aren't just phones anymore.
If you want a no nonsense device with a physical keyboard and superior email and message handling, a BB is still the best.
"No nonsense"? Have you actually used a Blackberry? They do a few things rather well but overall they are almost obnoxiously annoying to use. I'll take any of the better Android phones or an iPhone over any Blackberry any day of the week. My mother uses a fairly recent BB and good grief is it irritating. Oh it can email fine but heaven forbid you want to do anything besides messaging with it including changing settings.
You also have to remember that the devices it is competing against are general purpose computers which happen to be able to make calls. The BB still is in a world where email is the so-called killer app. Things have changed and just email isn't enough anymore. Even if we concede that the BB is better at dealing with email and messaging, the difference is marginal for most people. The advantages of the BB don't even come close to outweighing its deficiencies.