when I can get a very good netbook computer for under $400 why do I need to pay $1,200 per ear for a hearing aid?
Bunch of reasons. Here are just a few:
Economies of Scale. Netbooks are produced in far larger numbers for a far larger pool of consumers. The hearing aid market is plenty large but the netbook market is bigger.
Liability. A hearing aid is a medical device so there immediately is a cost for malpractice and liability built into the cost.
Rapidly advancing state of the art. Hearing aids are getting more sophisticated, smaller and better all the time. There are some pretty significant development costs to be recouped.
Someone else pays. Hearing aids are frequently (though not always) paid for by insurance. When someone else is footing the bill, there is less incentive to control costs.
Inefficient supply chain. You don't buy a hearing aid at Best Buy (thank $diety). Instead you buy it through a network of doctors and relatively small distributors with little scale to demand significant discounts.
Some but I think probably not as much as you fear. People who want illegal drugs can get them now. It's not exactly a secret that only a small percentage of the drugs are ever caught by the authorities and the rest obviously get sold. Jail hasn't proven to be a strong enough deterrent and it certainly has a huge opportunity cost.
People who aren't interested in drugs pretty much aren't going to use them no matter what the price. I'm certainly capable of legally buying a cigarette which contains the addictive drug nicotine but I never will. I think anyone who does smoke or uses recreational drugs is utterly retarded but I recognize the futility of trying to stop people from seeking to get high. The only question is how to shape policy so it does the least damage possible.
If you want to bring economics into the argument, the demand curve for illegal drugs is highly inelastic. Changes in price have relatively small effects on demand. Those who are interested will remain so, those who aren't will mostly remain so.
Societal pressures are generally much more effective than legal ones to shape behavior. Cigarettes and those who smoke them have been steadily ostracized in the US and the number of smokers has steadily declined for many years now.
...but the only way to get the drugs would be through organized crime networks.
That is no different than right now. Depending on what changes one makes to the laws though this does not have to remain the case. See my argument below.
The only thing to do is make it completely legal.
Legal or freely available? Very different things. There are some drugs and chemicals that never can be made freely available - they simply are too dangerous. There is a reason Lipitor is legal but restricted. However it is quite possible to make substitutes for recreational drugs available.
For whatever reason we allow tobacco and alcohol but prohibit most other recreational drugs. Perhaps a big part of the problem could be eliminated by permitting restricted access to a few new relatively benign recreational substances. It remains stupid to use any of them but then you don't have to throw people in jail for possession most of the time. Spend our resources on something other than jails. This is of course not a cure all answer, but it might be a start. Never will fly politically though I'm sure.
Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades,
People are just as corrupt as they ever have been. If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid. Go pick up a history book. The methods (sort of) change but people don't.
It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays. That would likely flush out 80% of the crap clogging the system today.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Because it sounds vaguely logical? Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others. It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt. Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is. I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.
Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges. The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations. The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.
Why did classical composers split their works into movements?
You are aware that movements are frequently played and enjoyed as an independent work, right? Ode To Joy is frequently played separately from the rest of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. It's quite possible to divide up a larger work into smaller pieces and have the smaller pieces be enjoyable all on their own. Happens all the time in music, literature, television, movies and even dance.
If [author] thought their book was a single work, why did they make individual chapters
Books are frequently divided up and sold in smaller pieces. You can buy the Lord of the Rings as a single volume or as separate books. The story of Harry Potter is sold in seven parts. I've even seen authors sell individual chapters to books. Comic books are typically sold in tiny chapters that are a part of a much larger story arc. Television has discrete episodes that can be enjoyed independent of the larger story arc. I've read many chapters of books that could be sold as separate works. The fact that the author chose to bundle a set of chapters together for the sake of sales (or "artistic integrity" if you buy that nonsense) is a completely separate issue. The fact that a larger work has smaller component pieces does not make the smaller pieces impossible to enjoy on their own.
If Pink Floyd thought it was a complete work, they could have simply put a pause in between the songs. Instead they made them tracks which is a clear indication they thought that piece of music could stand on its own merits. If they don't want to sell it that way, that's their (bizarre) choice but I'll listen to their music the way I want to and I don't give a damn what Pink Floyd thinks.
Pink Floyd can sell their work any way they chose. Likewise I can choose to buy their music in only the formats I'm satisfied with. Nice how it works out that way.
They could accomplish the same thing with a pause. Putting it into a separate track is a clear statement that it is a standalone work. There is no other reason to make it a track. Pink Floyd has also regularly released tracks from their music as singles which further indicates that they can be regarded a standalone works.
However even if we accept that it is like a chapter, it is quite possible to purchase and enjoy a single chapter of a book. It might lack the overall cohesion of the entire work but that doesn't mean it isn't a fine work by itself.
There also have been cases where authors have sold individual chapters of a book as well as books that are a part of a larger work. You can buy the Lord of the Rings as a single work or as a complete volume and it's wonderful reading either way. Comic books are probably the best example of selling a work in installments. The overall story arcs are typically much longer than the individual comic.
I don't know anybody who listens to just a few tracks of DSOTM.
Pleased to make your acquaintance. I haven't seen anyone listen to the album end to end since I was in college - 15 years ago. Tracks from that particular album are played on the radio as standalone pieces all the time.
Heck, the Wall makes no friggin' sense at all if you just pull out...
Only if you actually are following the whole story which is more effort than I've seen most people put into their listening. The *music* is just fine even if you pay no attention to the lyrics. Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 are all just fine as standalone works. I listen to them frequently in just that way. Heck the London Philharmonic released a symphonic version of many of those songs (Us and Them - Symphonic Pink Floyd) which proves the point that they can be standalone pieces.
There are many ways to enjoy Pink Floyd beyond just the official dogma. I find it ironic that a group who writes lyrics decrying thought control is so interested in controlling how I listen to my music.
A symphony is sometimes broken up into different pieces.. it's all part of one master work but there are clear cut changes in the sound and mood.
And it is very common to play only one movement from the overall piece. It's also common to sell these performances separately from the overall work. A movement from a symphony is typically a work that can stand on its own merits. Likewise, most of Pink Floyd's songs have merit on their own, whether or not they are included in the larger work.
If an author puts out a collection of short stories, why should that author be required to sell them individually?
Who said anything about "required"? Pink Floyd can do whatever they want. However I don't have to buy the whole compilation if I only like one chapter/song on the work. I don't give a damn whether Pink Floyd regards it as a single work or not. I like some of the songs and not others and I'm not interested in paying for the ones I don't like. If Pink Floyd has a problem with that, they can go cry about it to their accountant.
They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.
Pink Floyd can say whatever they want and they've made their millions so they can do whatever they want in the name of "artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks? Fact is the songs on their albums are discrete works which can be listened to independently. Their albums are rarely listened to in their entirety - a fact I'm sure they are well aware of.
They can sell their works however they want and I'm fine with that but I don't have to buy them if I don't like the format. I happen to own several of their albums and like Pink Floyd's music but not all their music is of equal quality. There are several albums of theirs I only like a few tracks on and I haven't bought the whole album because of that fact. I could not care less about Pink Floyd's opinion about whether their albums are a single work. I'll listen to it the way I want to and buy it only in the format I want. If they won't sell it to me in that format, that is their loss, not mine.
Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.
Says them. I am a fan of Pink Floyd's music but I can't remember the last time I listened to one of their albums end to end. Just because they claim it is a single piece of music doesn't mean I have to agree with that assertion. I think the fact that they don't sell it as a single track belies Pink Floyd's argument. If it really was one piece of music, why have separate tracks? There is no point or purpose to them. By dividing them into separate tracks they are making a clear statement that these are separate works even if they bundle them together.
I really don't care if there is an underlying coherency to the music or not. I don't care if the whole thing is intended to be a single work. I don't care in the slightest about the artistic integrity of the album. There are parts of The Wall I like and parts I'm indifferent to. Same with their other albums. Pink Floyd can sell their music any way they want but I don't have to buy it. Some of their work is better than other bits. I'm not about to fork over money for the bits I don't like. Pink Floyd has made millions over the years and they don't need my money to pay the bills.
Irrelevant question. A loaded firearm should never, ever, ever be withing reach of a three year old. Whether the safety was engaged, trigger locks installed, or any other precaution was taken is completely irrelevant. SHE SHOULDN"T HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THE GUN. The only way to completely ensure a three year old cannot discharge the gun is to keep it safely away from her. I cannot fathom of a reason why a S&W handgun would need to be out on a table in the house unsupervised and loaded.
He's an idiot, but I dunno if he really needs jail. I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
That's for a judge to decide. There is no excuse for leaving a loaded firearm lying around a young child. None. End of discussion.
Just because he feels terrible (and while likely, we don't actually know if he does - it was a stepfather so it wasn't even his kid) doesn't mean he should be excused from punishment - and by punishment I mean up to and including jail time and having any remaining children removed from custody. Anyone negligent enough to leave a loaded firearm around a child should expect to be put in prison for some amount of time. Remorse might mitigate the punishment but it doesn't excuse the irresponsible action.
A drunk driver might feel bad too but they still should expect to go to jail if their irresponsible actions kill someone. This is no different as far as I'm concerned. A parent that has a child die due to this kind of clear negligence is undeserving of the right to raise children. Just because you produced them doesn't mean you are qualified to raise them and tragically some people go ahead and prove that fact in the worst possible way.
He wasn't discussing cars as a whole, just the aspects relevant to the Toyota fiasco[1].
No he wasn't. He said "The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea." That has nothing whatsoever to do with Toyota specifically.
On old cars there's nothing second guessing you.
That doesn't automatically translate to better or safer. It's simpler but that is all you can say for certain unless you want to compare specific cases. Just as newer is not always better, older is not always safer.
Yes, obviously some things are better on modern cars, but that's not the point here
No that's exactly the point. The grandparent post was implying that a mechanical linkage is intrinsically safer while providing no evidence to back up that assertion. If you are going to declare drive-by-wire to be more dangerous than the alternatives, you had better back up that declaration with data.
I've seen this "mechanical linkages are safer" argument before and I've never seen anyone making it actually back it up with facts. They just pre-suppose that the simpler, older technology is safer. It may be or it may not be but I've yet to see anyone prove it.
The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea.
A mechanical linkage is not necessarily more reliable or safer. The fact that you can put your hands on it doesn't by itself make it better or worse. You are making an assumption based on your intuition that you cannot back up with data.
Vehicles have only become more and more problematic since the late 70s due to increased reliance on electronics in place of actual mechanical parts.
Nice sound bite but problematic in what way? Cars today are in general demonstrably more reliable, last longer, rust less, are (generally) safer in crashes, more powerful, and emit less pollution. At one point I made my living selling classic cars from the 70s and earlier. I'm very familiar with them first hand. You might like the styling better but performance-wise they are inferior to modern cars in almost every way I can think of.
Why would people be buying at above $6 when the buyout offer is $5.75?
Several reasons. Some of it is very likely a short squeeze which often happens when a stock suddenly appreciates significantly. Also there probably is some speculation that the final price will be a bit higher. I'd expect the price to quickly settle at just at or under the offer price.
From a pure financial play I don't see how paying 2 billion for 990+ million cash makes sense.
Basically because the hedge fund is probably betting they can sell the assets of Novell for more than $1.1B. Groupwise alone in the right hands (HP or Oracle maybe?) is basically an annuity that might be worth that much. Novell has other products that are decent and probably worth something to the right party. My guess is that the hedge fund will strip out the cash and then sell the assets of the company to the highest bidder on the theory that the assets are worth more than the whole company.
The rest of Novel isn't really worth anything UNLESS, they turn Novel into another FLOSS services firm like RedHat.
Doubtful. Novell's value is in its installed base of software - not in their services. I don't think it could turn itself into a successful service company - better to sell to a large service company (HP, Oracle, IBM). I don't think they have the resources to transform themselves like that and if they tried I'd expect the shareholders to be pissed. Selling the company is probably the right play - the only question is what price can they get?
I'll speculate that the phrase "potential breaches of fiduciary duty" is lawyer-ese for "your bid is too low".
No speculation needed. That is exactly what it most often means. The board of any company has a duty to maximize the return to any shareholders. Selling the company might be the best way to accomplish that - or it might not. Everything in finance is essentially a guess as to what will make the most money. It needs to be a well researched and reasoned guess but it is still a guess at the end of the day. If shareholders think they are getting a bad price it is entirely reasonable and proper for them to lawyer up and say so.
I actually researched Novell as a possible investment about 5 years ago and came to the conclusion that the company was in a slow death spiral. Not an inescapable one but I don't see them doing anything that gives me confidence they could escape it and their stock price hasn't budged since then. The price being offered is approximately the current market capitalization. (the market cap rose yesterday once the offer price was announced - arbitrageurs bought in to bring the price close to the offer price) Novell has a lot of cash and they have some decent products that have high switching costs which is keeping them in the game. But they aren't capturing much new business. Basically I think they'll end up getting sold in whole or in parts to Oracle, IBM or HP after the hedge fund is done stripping out all the cash from the company. Novell likely has undervalued assets that are worth more separately than together.
Disclosure: I am an accountant and I've worked on due diligence for the sales of companies.
The state is levying a heavy fine - it's just paid to an individual instead of the treasury. You seem to be unaware that the judiciary is part of the state. I trust the executive/legislative branches of state less than a plaintiff in a lawsuit to do something useful with the money. Our government is not renowned for their careful use of funds from any source.
The point is not the amount of the fine, but who gets the money.
If you are injured I can't think of anyone better than you to get the money. I'm willing to trust you to put it to good use. I don't trust our government to do the same and the government will get its cut by way of taxes anyway.
If someone benefits, I would rather see it go to the state who will use it for the good of us all (or at least the same "good" they spend other taxes on), rather than some random guy who "got lucky" having an accident.
"Lucky"? You think getting third degree burns, being disfigured, maimed or otherwise badly injured makes you lucky? I think someone confined to a wheelchair for life wouldn't describe themselves as lucky no matter how much money they won in a lawsuit. You have a strange definition of luck my friend...
And I disagree with you that the state is any better to get the money. The state was not injured and probably was not involved and I certainly don't trust the state with any sort of windfall cash.
How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?
So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior? The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics. They exist to make money. That is the ONLY reason most of them exist. If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.
If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.
In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.
Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior. If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost, the company is going to behave badly. People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.
And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.
Agreed but you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be. A $50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.
Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.
Why is the state any more deserving? Besides, the state will take much of it in taxes anyway.
Unconscionable because terms are revealed after the sale in tiny print where they tell you there are no refunds(the only part you really care about) whether you agree to their bullshit terms or not.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any judge who will agree that terms written in black and white on your ticket are unconscionable. You are legally allowed to sell the ticket for at least the face value of the ticket in every state in the US. Some states even allow you to sell it for more than face value.
Unenforceable because the agent selling me the ticket isn't a competent attorney or even a paralegal;
Doesn't have to be. Any two competent adults (presumably you are one) can enter into a binding contract. You also can enter into a contract with a corporation (a legal person) which is what you are doing when you use the ticket. The ticket taker is a legally authorized agent of the corporation for this purpose. Do you really think the lawyers for the NFL/MLB/NBA are so stupid that they haven't thought this out?
Loser pays actually helps a lot more than you're describing. It makes it enormously more feasible for attorneys to take cases on contingency, especially obviously ridiculous ones.
EVERY attorney I've ever spoken with (and that is a lot of them) has told me that if a case goes to court there is at minimum a 10% chance they will lose the case no matter how iron clad their argument. Even being correct is no guarantee that you will win once the case gets to a judge/jury. If we have a loser pays system that is a pretty substantial risk for a party who can't afford to lose.
Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some form of loser pays in the system - we just have to be careful how it is implemented.
Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow.
I'm sure McDonalds are a bunch of big boys and can handle it. Not really sure how this is a low blow...
I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not. McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee.
Care to cite your source?
$1.3M in daily profits from coffee would not be remotely shocking for a company with over 31,000 locations and 47 million customers daily. The gross margins on coffee are around 60% (look at Starbucks income statement if you need proof) and McDonalds EBIT margin in 2008/09 was 29.8%. McDonalds had revenues around $30 billion last year. If they really made $1.3M on coffee per day in profit that means their annual coffee sales were around $1.6 billion or if the gross margin is used the number is more like $780 million in sales. Big numbers but quite reasonable given McDonalds revenues and the amount of coffee they sell. Starbucks revenues by comparison were just under $10 billion last year as a quick sanity check so $1.6 billion in coffee sales from McDonalds sounds pretty reasonable. I'm actually a little surprised it's not higher.
And even "collect" is a stretch, because not every cup of coffee sells at list price, and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds (e.g. credit card processing fees).
The percent of losses due to these factors is minor (2-4% at most is typical in the industry) and without question quite well known to McDonalds accountants. It is accounted for (indirectly) in their financial statements so any numbers you look at will have factored this in already.
You own source shows Toyota obstructing the use of data from their own "black boxes".
I've read every line of the actual articles in both citations and nowhere does it say anything of the sort. Blogger comments don't count. Businessweek has a good article on the whole smelly affair.
Occasionally, YES. There are many times when an outsider is far more effective than an insider, contrary to conventional wisdom.
Agreed but it's rare and usually pointless. When it comes to finance you WANT someone in charge who knows where the bodies are could be buried (so to speak) when it comes to finance. I'm a certified accountant and I've had to figure out instances of fraud myself. Someone who didn't know finance would never be able to do it.
It is usually FAR too easy for outsiders to be taken advantage of. Even insiders can have a hard time of it. Worse, the outsider has a high chance of screwing up things they don't really understand. If I say "Collateralized Debt Obligation" and you have to go to Wikipedia to know what they are used for, you are screwed my friend. There is no chance you'll not be run over by the finance pros.
Yes, hiring insiders can cause an agency problem sometimes. If solving the agency problem were easily done by hiring a different group it would have already been done.
If we were allowed to tar and feather the bastards who manage billions of dollars and fuck it up, then the world would be a slightly different place.
So your solution is to eliminate actual laws and just go to a lynch mob. Nice. Remind me never to work anywhere near you.
You want good regulation? For ever dollar you loss of someone elses money, they get to hit you once.
Congratulations, your argument just lost any thin shred of credibility you might have had. Thanks for playing. You don't happen to work for some "nice Italian gentlemen" by any chance do you?
The mob was safer and more trustworthy of a business partner than anyone on Wall Street, at least they didn't fuck you over THEN come take your house because they lost all your money.
I guess you DO work for those "nice Italian gentlemen"...
Slashdot Mirror
when I can get a very good netbook computer for under $400 why do I need to pay $1,200 per ear for a hearing aid?
Bunch of reasons. Here are just a few:
It would increase demand...
Some but I think probably not as much as you fear. People who want illegal drugs can get them now. It's not exactly a secret that only a small percentage of the drugs are ever caught by the authorities and the rest obviously get sold. Jail hasn't proven to be a strong enough deterrent and it certainly has a huge opportunity cost.
People who aren't interested in drugs pretty much aren't going to use them no matter what the price. I'm certainly capable of legally buying a cigarette which contains the addictive drug nicotine but I never will. I think anyone who does smoke or uses recreational drugs is utterly retarded but I recognize the futility of trying to stop people from seeking to get high. The only question is how to shape policy so it does the least damage possible.
If you want to bring economics into the argument, the demand curve for illegal drugs is highly inelastic. Changes in price have relatively small effects on demand. Those who are interested will remain so, those who aren't will mostly remain so.
Societal pressures are generally much more effective than legal ones to shape behavior. Cigarettes and those who smoke them have been steadily ostracized in the US and the number of smokers has steadily declined for many years now.
...but the only way to get the drugs would be through organized crime networks.
That is no different than right now. Depending on what changes one makes to the laws though this does not have to remain the case. See my argument below.
The only thing to do is make it completely legal.
Legal or freely available? Very different things. There are some drugs and chemicals that never can be made freely available - they simply are too dangerous. There is a reason Lipitor is legal but restricted. However it is quite possible to make substitutes for recreational drugs available.
For whatever reason we allow tobacco and alcohol but prohibit most other recreational drugs. Perhaps a big part of the problem could be eliminated by permitting restricted access to a few new relatively benign recreational substances. It remains stupid to use any of them but then you don't have to throw people in jail for possession most of the time. Spend our resources on something other than jails. This is of course not a cure all answer, but it might be a start. Never will fly politically though I'm sure.
Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades,
People are just as corrupt as they ever have been. If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid. Go pick up a history book. The methods (sort of) change but people don't.
It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays. That would likely flush out 80% of the crap clogging the system today.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Because it sounds vaguely logical? Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others. It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt. Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is. I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.
Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges. The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations. The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.
Why did classical composers split their works into movements?
You are aware that movements are frequently played and enjoyed as an independent work, right? Ode To Joy is frequently played separately from the rest of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. It's quite possible to divide up a larger work into smaller pieces and have the smaller pieces be enjoyable all on their own. Happens all the time in music, literature, television, movies and even dance.
If [author] thought their book was a single work, why did they make individual chapters
Books are frequently divided up and sold in smaller pieces. You can buy the Lord of the Rings as a single volume or as separate books. The story of Harry Potter is sold in seven parts. I've even seen authors sell individual chapters to books. Comic books are typically sold in tiny chapters that are a part of a much larger story arc. Television has discrete episodes that can be enjoyed independent of the larger story arc. I've read many chapters of books that could be sold as separate works. The fact that the author chose to bundle a set of chapters together for the sake of sales (or "artistic integrity" if you buy that nonsense) is a completely separate issue. The fact that a larger work has smaller component pieces does not make the smaller pieces impossible to enjoy on their own.
If Pink Floyd thought it was a complete work, they could have simply put a pause in between the songs. Instead they made them tracks which is a clear indication they thought that piece of music could stand on its own merits. If they don't want to sell it that way, that's their (bizarre) choice but I'll listen to their music the way I want to and I don't give a damn what Pink Floyd thinks.
Pink Floyd can sell their work any way they chose. Likewise I can choose to buy their music in only the formats I'm satisfied with. Nice how it works out that way.
A simple analogy: chapters of a book.
They could accomplish the same thing with a pause. Putting it into a separate track is a clear statement that it is a standalone work. There is no other reason to make it a track. Pink Floyd has also regularly released tracks from their music as singles which further indicates that they can be regarded a standalone works.
However even if we accept that it is like a chapter, it is quite possible to purchase and enjoy a single chapter of a book. It might lack the overall cohesion of the entire work but that doesn't mean it isn't a fine work by itself.
There also have been cases where authors have sold individual chapters of a book as well as books that are a part of a larger work. You can buy the Lord of the Rings as a single work or as a complete volume and it's wonderful reading either way. Comic books are probably the best example of selling a work in installments. The overall story arcs are typically much longer than the individual comic.
I don't know anybody who listens to just a few tracks of DSOTM.
Pleased to make your acquaintance. I haven't seen anyone listen to the album end to end since I was in college - 15 years ago. Tracks from that particular album are played on the radio as standalone pieces all the time.
Heck, the Wall makes no friggin' sense at all if you just pull out...
Only if you actually are following the whole story which is more effort than I've seen most people put into their listening. The *music* is just fine even if you pay no attention to the lyrics. Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 are all just fine as standalone works. I listen to them frequently in just that way. Heck the London Philharmonic released a symphonic version of many of those songs (Us and Them - Symphonic Pink Floyd) which proves the point that they can be standalone pieces.
There are many ways to enjoy Pink Floyd beyond just the official dogma. I find it ironic that a group who writes lyrics decrying thought control is so interested in controlling how I listen to my music.
A symphony is sometimes broken up into different pieces.. it's all part of one master work but there are clear cut changes in the sound and mood.
And it is very common to play only one movement from the overall piece. It's also common to sell these performances separately from the overall work. A movement from a symphony is typically a work that can stand on its own merits. Likewise, most of Pink Floyd's songs have merit on their own, whether or not they are included in the larger work.
If an author puts out a collection of short stories, why should that author be required to sell them individually?
Who said anything about "required"? Pink Floyd can do whatever they want. However I don't have to buy the whole compilation if I only like one chapter/song on the work. I don't give a damn whether Pink Floyd regards it as a single work or not. I like some of the songs and not others and I'm not interested in paying for the ones I don't like. If Pink Floyd has a problem with that, they can go cry about it to their accountant.
They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.
Pink Floyd can say whatever they want and they've made their millions so they can do whatever they want in the name of "artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks? Fact is the songs on their albums are discrete works which can be listened to independently. Their albums are rarely listened to in their entirety - a fact I'm sure they are well aware of.
They can sell their works however they want and I'm fine with that but I don't have to buy them if I don't like the format. I happen to own several of their albums and like Pink Floyd's music but not all their music is of equal quality. There are several albums of theirs I only like a few tracks on and I haven't bought the whole album because of that fact. I could not care less about Pink Floyd's opinion about whether their albums are a single work. I'll listen to it the way I want to and buy it only in the format I want. If they won't sell it to me in that format, that is their loss, not mine.
Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.
Says them. I am a fan of Pink Floyd's music but I can't remember the last time I listened to one of their albums end to end. Just because they claim it is a single piece of music doesn't mean I have to agree with that assertion. I think the fact that they don't sell it as a single track belies Pink Floyd's argument. If it really was one piece of music, why have separate tracks? There is no point or purpose to them. By dividing them into separate tracks they are making a clear statement that these are separate works even if they bundle them together.
I really don't care if there is an underlying coherency to the music or not. I don't care if the whole thing is intended to be a single work. I don't care in the slightest about the artistic integrity of the album. There are parts of The Wall I like and parts I'm indifferent to. Same with their other albums. Pink Floyd can sell their music any way they want but I don't have to buy it. Some of their work is better than other bits. I'm not about to fork over money for the bits I don't like. Pink Floyd has made millions over the years and they don't need my money to pay the bills.
So how did she turn off the safety?
Irrelevant question. A loaded firearm should never, ever, ever be withing reach of a three year old. Whether the safety was engaged, trigger locks installed, or any other precaution was taken is completely irrelevant. SHE SHOULDN"T HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THE GUN. The only way to completely ensure a three year old cannot discharge the gun is to keep it safely away from her. I cannot fathom of a reason why a S&W handgun would need to be out on a table in the house unsupervised and loaded.
He's an idiot, but I dunno if he really needs jail. I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
That's for a judge to decide. There is no excuse for leaving a loaded firearm lying around a young child. None. End of discussion.
Just because he feels terrible (and while likely, we don't actually know if he does - it was a stepfather so it wasn't even his kid) doesn't mean he should be excused from punishment - and by punishment I mean up to and including jail time and having any remaining children removed from custody. Anyone negligent enough to leave a loaded firearm around a child should expect to be put in prison for some amount of time. Remorse might mitigate the punishment but it doesn't excuse the irresponsible action.
A drunk driver might feel bad too but they still should expect to go to jail if their irresponsible actions kill someone. This is no different as far as I'm concerned. A parent that has a child die due to this kind of clear negligence is undeserving of the right to raise children. Just because you produced them doesn't mean you are qualified to raise them and tragically some people go ahead and prove that fact in the worst possible way.
He wasn't discussing cars as a whole, just the aspects relevant to the Toyota fiasco[1].
No he wasn't. He said "The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea." That has nothing whatsoever to do with Toyota specifically.
On old cars there's nothing second guessing you.
That doesn't automatically translate to better or safer. It's simpler but that is all you can say for certain unless you want to compare specific cases. Just as newer is not always better, older is not always safer.
Yes, obviously some things are better on modern cars, but that's not the point here
No that's exactly the point. The grandparent post was implying that a mechanical linkage is intrinsically safer while providing no evidence to back up that assertion. If you are going to declare drive-by-wire to be more dangerous than the alternatives, you had better back up that declaration with data.
I've seen this "mechanical linkages are safer" argument before and I've never seen anyone making it actually back it up with facts. They just pre-suppose that the simpler, older technology is safer. It may be or it may not be but I've yet to see anyone prove it.
The real problem is people who think that not having any sort of actual linkage is a good idea.
A mechanical linkage is not necessarily more reliable or safer. The fact that you can put your hands on it doesn't by itself make it better or worse. You are making an assumption based on your intuition that you cannot back up with data.
Vehicles have only become more and more problematic since the late 70s due to increased reliance on electronics in place of actual mechanical parts.
Nice sound bite but problematic in what way? Cars today are in general demonstrably more reliable, last longer, rust less, are (generally) safer in crashes, more powerful, and emit less pollution. At one point I made my living selling classic cars from the 70s and earlier. I'm very familiar with them first hand. You might like the styling better but performance-wise they are inferior to modern cars in almost every way I can think of.
Why would people be buying at above $6 when the buyout offer is $5.75?
Several reasons. Some of it is very likely a short squeeze which often happens when a stock suddenly appreciates significantly. Also there probably is some speculation that the final price will be a bit higher. I'd expect the price to quickly settle at just at or under the offer price.
From a pure financial play I don't see how paying 2 billion for 990+ million cash makes sense.
Basically because the hedge fund is probably betting they can sell the assets of Novell for more than $1.1B. Groupwise alone in the right hands (HP or Oracle maybe?) is basically an annuity that might be worth that much. Novell has other products that are decent and probably worth something to the right party. My guess is that the hedge fund will strip out the cash and then sell the assets of the company to the highest bidder on the theory that the assets are worth more than the whole company.
The rest of Novel isn't really worth anything UNLESS, they turn Novel into another FLOSS services firm like RedHat.
Doubtful. Novell's value is in its installed base of software - not in their services. I don't think it could turn itself into a successful service company - better to sell to a large service company (HP, Oracle, IBM). I don't think they have the resources to transform themselves like that and if they tried I'd expect the shareholders to be pissed. Selling the company is probably the right play - the only question is what price can they get?
I'll speculate that the phrase "potential breaches of fiduciary duty" is lawyer-ese for "your bid is too low".
No speculation needed. That is exactly what it most often means. The board of any company has a duty to maximize the return to any shareholders. Selling the company might be the best way to accomplish that - or it might not. Everything in finance is essentially a guess as to what will make the most money. It needs to be a well researched and reasoned guess but it is still a guess at the end of the day. If shareholders think they are getting a bad price it is entirely reasonable and proper for them to lawyer up and say so.
I actually researched Novell as a possible investment about 5 years ago and came to the conclusion that the company was in a slow death spiral. Not an inescapable one but I don't see them doing anything that gives me confidence they could escape it and their stock price hasn't budged since then. The price being offered is approximately the current market capitalization. (the market cap rose yesterday once the offer price was announced - arbitrageurs bought in to bring the price close to the offer price) Novell has a lot of cash and they have some decent products that have high switching costs which is keeping them in the game. But they aren't capturing much new business. Basically I think they'll end up getting sold in whole or in parts to Oracle, IBM or HP after the hedge fund is done stripping out all the cash from the company. Novell likely has undervalued assets that are worth more separately than together.
Disclosure: I am an accountant and I've worked on due diligence for the sales of companies.
Have the state levy a heavy fine.
The state is levying a heavy fine - it's just paid to an individual instead of the treasury. You seem to be unaware that the judiciary is part of the state. I trust the executive/legislative branches of state less than a plaintiff in a lawsuit to do something useful with the money. Our government is not renowned for their careful use of funds from any source.
The point is not the amount of the fine, but who gets the money.
If you are injured I can't think of anyone better than you to get the money. I'm willing to trust you to put it to good use. I don't trust our government to do the same and the government will get its cut by way of taxes anyway.
If someone benefits, I would rather see it go to the state who will use it for the good of us all (or at least the same "good" they spend other taxes on), rather than some random guy who "got lucky" having an accident.
"Lucky"? You think getting third degree burns, being disfigured, maimed or otherwise badly injured makes you lucky? I think someone confined to a wheelchair for life wouldn't describe themselves as lucky no matter how much money they won in a lawsuit. You have a strange definition of luck my friend...
And I disagree with you that the state is any better to get the money. The state was not injured and probably was not involved and I certainly don't trust the state with any sort of windfall cash.
How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?
So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior? The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics. They exist to make money. That is the ONLY reason most of them exist. If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.
If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.
In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.
Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior. If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost, the company is going to behave badly. People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.
And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.
Agreed but you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be. A $50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.
Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.
Why is the state any more deserving? Besides, the state will take much of it in taxes anyway.
Unconscionable because terms are revealed after the sale in tiny print where they tell you there are no refunds(the only part you really care about) whether you agree to their bullshit terms or not.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any judge who will agree that terms written in black and white on your ticket are unconscionable. You are legally allowed to sell the ticket for at least the face value of the ticket in every state in the US. Some states even allow you to sell it for more than face value.
Unenforceable because the agent selling me the ticket isn't a competent attorney or even a paralegal;
Doesn't have to be. Any two competent adults (presumably you are one) can enter into a binding contract. You also can enter into a contract with a corporation (a legal person) which is what you are doing when you use the ticket. The ticket taker is a legally authorized agent of the corporation for this purpose. Do you really think the lawyers for the NFL/MLB/NBA are so stupid that they haven't thought this out?
Loser pays actually helps a lot more than you're describing. It makes it enormously more feasible for attorneys to take cases on contingency, especially obviously ridiculous ones.
EVERY attorney I've ever spoken with (and that is a lot of them) has told me that if a case goes to court there is at minimum a 10% chance they will lose the case no matter how iron clad their argument. Even being correct is no guarantee that you will win once the case gets to a judge/jury. If we have a loser pays system that is a pretty substantial risk for a party who can't afford to lose.
Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some form of loser pays in the system - we just have to be careful how it is implemented.
Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow.
I'm sure McDonalds are a bunch of big boys and can handle it. Not really sure how this is a low blow...
I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not. McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee.
Care to cite your source?
$1.3M in daily profits from coffee would not be remotely shocking for a company with over 31,000 locations and 47 million customers daily. The gross margins on coffee are around 60% (look at Starbucks income statement if you need proof) and McDonalds EBIT margin in 2008/09 was 29.8%. McDonalds had revenues around $30 billion last year. If they really made $1.3M on coffee per day in profit that means their annual coffee sales were around $1.6 billion or if the gross margin is used the number is more like $780 million in sales. Big numbers but quite reasonable given McDonalds revenues and the amount of coffee they sell. Starbucks revenues by comparison were just under $10 billion last year as a quick sanity check so $1.6 billion in coffee sales from McDonalds sounds pretty reasonable. I'm actually a little surprised it's not higher.
And even "collect" is a stretch, because not every cup of coffee sells at list price, and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds (e.g. credit card processing fees).
The percent of losses due to these factors is minor (2-4% at most is typical in the industry) and without question quite well known to McDonalds accountants. It is accounted for (indirectly) in their financial statements so any numbers you look at will have factored this in already.
Disclosure: I am a certified accountant.
You own source shows Toyota obstructing the use of data from their own "black boxes".
I've read every line of the actual articles in both citations and nowhere does it say anything of the sort. Blogger comments don't count. Businessweek has a good article on the whole smelly affair.
Occasionally, YES. There are many times when an outsider is far more effective than an insider, contrary to conventional wisdom.
Agreed but it's rare and usually pointless. When it comes to finance you WANT someone in charge who knows where the bodies are could be buried (so to speak) when it comes to finance. I'm a certified accountant and I've had to figure out instances of fraud myself. Someone who didn't know finance would never be able to do it.
It is usually FAR too easy for outsiders to be taken advantage of. Even insiders can have a hard time of it. Worse, the outsider has a high chance of screwing up things they don't really understand. If I say "Collateralized Debt Obligation" and you have to go to Wikipedia to know what they are used for, you are screwed my friend. There is no chance you'll not be run over by the finance pros.
Yes, hiring insiders can cause an agency problem sometimes. If solving the agency problem were easily done by hiring a different group it would have already been done.
If we were allowed to tar and feather the bastards who manage billions of dollars and fuck it up, then the world would be a slightly different place.
So your solution is to eliminate actual laws and just go to a lynch mob. Nice. Remind me never to work anywhere near you.
You want good regulation? For ever dollar you loss of someone elses money, they get to hit you once.
Congratulations, your argument just lost any thin shred of credibility you might have had. Thanks for playing. You don't happen to work for some "nice Italian gentlemen" by any chance do you?
The mob was safer and more trustworthy of a business partner than anyone on Wall Street, at least they didn't fuck you over THEN come take your house because they lost all your money.
I guess you DO work for those "nice Italian gentlemen"...