Sure, if there's no generic, then there's no choice but to prescribe the name brand. For something that does have generics, it doesn't make sense for the doc to keep calling for the name brand. It perpetuates the idea that there's something "second class" about generic products.
I thought the same at first, actually, then one of them spontaneously broke (I think it started linking to a story about its being a googlebomb instead).
Google's explanation for why they hadn't fixed this in the past was that Googlebombs never displaced useful searches. That is, they didn't get in the way of many people actually trying to find information. The canonical, "miserable failure" example illustrates this -- is there any reason to expect that Google would give you useful hits for that search? I can't think of a reason to use that search that unless you were just curious about what Google would return.
It was clear from Google's release that they considered the Googlebombs a perhaps amusing nuisance, but it wasn't something they supported. Rather, it just wasn't worth the effort of fixing since that effort would be at the cost of other development that they felt would do more to improve user searches.
Now, they found that people were assuming these funny responses were somehow endorsed by Google. They could put up a disclaimer, but a) not many people actually read fine print, and b) many would not believe the disclaimer anyway. Since the Googlebombs didn't actually serve any useful purpose and Google didn't want to be mistaken for endorsing whatever might be inferred from the presence of these odd search results, they did away with it. That's perfectly legitimate.
So, Google really DID claim they were making a minor improvement to their search results through this change, but that wasn't the highest priority. It's not like they've got any particular duty to maintain details of the PageRank algorithm. Further, protecting their image IS an important goal, particularly when it can be done through a means that has a positive impact on the searches. Too bad that a cute Google game is gone, but another one will crop up before long, I'm sure...
Wait until games are sold on tough little Flash RAM cards. Used gaming will be even better.
I'm waiting until they're sold on ROM chips encased in a custom plastic cartridge that plugs into a flimsy plastic socket on the console. That's the true future of gaming technology!
Another thing is retailers' odd reliance on pre-orders (even though they can't guarantee to fulfill them), something else you don't see with DVDs.
Just a thought, but maybe this is because DVDs are typically second releases of movies that many people already saw at the theater, so there's less buzz about the DVD release. The sort of game that people preorder has typically never been seen before.
A social campaign to encourage doctors to use generics as applicable would also be good on many levels, and you might actually be able to get somewhere with this with a reasonable amount of effort, by targetting the insurance companies.
You know, it really bugs me that doctors don't already automatically prescribe generics. Most insurance companies I've been on require that the pharmacy substitute a generic if available. Further, they have a relatively short list of name brand medications that they'll fully cover if generics are not available. This just makes sense -- other than a few creams and ointments where medically inactive ingredients may improve the efficacy, there's no reason to seek name brands. Yet every doctor I've been to prescribes a name brand product. I was confused when he prescribed Amoxil for my son, until I realized it was just a name brand version of amoxicillin (with another chemical to improve its efficacy). Why should the doctor be perpetuating the idea that there's any reason to prefer Amoxil in the first place? I'd rather he prescribe me the specific chemical and then I can choose the name brand if I want it for some reason. That just seems like a better way for him to do his job.
No, he was correct. His statement was "a bomb looks like a bomb." That is, in if-then format, "If an object is a bomb then it looks like a bomb."
If that statement is true, then so is "If an object does not look like a bomb then it is not a bomb." That is simply (A=>B)=>(~B=>~A) which doesn't require iff.
You and I agree that you will buy a CD from me. The price will be determined by a coin flip -- we'll toss a fair coin and if it's heads, you pay $25. If it's tails, you'll pay $5. When you're not looking, I change the coin for one that is heads on both sides. Do you have a problem with that?
Breaking the rules to increase the price a bidder must pay amounts to lying, cheating, and fraud. If you don't see why this is wrong, then you're either not very smart or not very honest.
It's perhaps unwise to use a site like eBay and expect not to be scammed, so perhaps its users are suckers. "Everyone else is doing it" doesn't make wrong into right. My only point is that the "suckers" are being defrauded by cheaters. At the very least these shills are violating the eBay terms of service, and quite possibly fair trade laws as well.
Personally, I haven't bought anything of significant value on eBay ever, and nothing at all for several years. Mostly this is because it's just not worth the trouble to me. Still, it irritates me to see illegitimate practices defended on grounds that they're hard to stop.
It's simply not the deal you sign up for when you place a bid. The bidder can't win the auction and then decide to pay less than his winning bid.
If the seller is not willing to let the auction run by the eBay rules (which, right or wrong, includes a no-shill rule), he is not free to just decide to ignore the rules. If he doesn't inform the bidders that he's making this change to the contract under which they're placing their bids, then he's deceiving them, plain and simple.
That eBay would de-list his auction and probably cancel his account is immaterial. If the seller is not comfortable running auctions in a format compatible with eBay, then he's free to find another forum on which to run his auctions.
It's also immaterial that no one can be forced to pay more than they're willing to pay. The fact is, they're entering a process with an understanding of how the final price will be determined. Shilling changes that process to their detriment. You can argue that shilling should be openly allowed, but it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument that deceiving the bidders is a legitimate practice.
The critical difference is the set of rules under which the bids are made. In your example, two people who are interested in buying the item are competing with each other and they settle on a price. Both they and the seller knew the arrangement when the process started and none has a reason to be upset.
On eBay, the rules are different. The rules are that proxy bidding is the order of the day and that the seller is expressly forbidden from shilling. If the seller does bid to increase the price of the item, he is deceiving the buyer. It is immaterial whether the buyer was willing to pay the price he was shilled to, the point is that, under the rules he accepted when he tendered his bid, he should have paid less.
It doesn't matter whether he got a good deal or a bad deal in the end. He got a worse deal than he should have gotten under the rules he agreed to. He was defrauded and it cost him the difference between his winning bid and one bidding increment greater than the next highest bid. As eBay points out (or did the last time I was there, several years ago), your bid is a contract. That contract is made under terms that don't allow shills -- the seller is NOT free to change the rules if he expects his buyers to honor their end of the deal.
You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether it's right or wrong to allow shills, but it doesn't matter. The simple fact is that the rules on eBay don't allow them. Sellers using them are fraudulently deceiving the bidders in their auctions and there's really no room to argue that they're in the right on that.
First of all, I don't buy anything on eBay any more. I used it about 5 years ago to buy a few video games that were essentially unavailable otherwise.
Second, I've been careful to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with an auction which allows a seller to increase the price as he desires. There's nothing wrong with selling an item at a fixed price. There's nothing wrong with soliciting secret bids from potential buyers, choosing the highest bid, adding 50%, and offering it to the highest bidder at that price and canceling the sale if he refuses.
What IS wrong is entering into a binding agreement to sell an item at $1.00 (or whatever increment) greater than the second highest bid, subject to the constraint that bidding on your own item (directly or indirectly through a proxy) is not to be allowed, then secretly bidding on your own item. The buyers are bidding subject to one set of rules and the seller is selling subject to another. Further, he is misrepresenting the terms of his sale.
Whether the buyer has a right to expect a deal or not doesn't enter into it. The moment the seller violates the terms under which he's offered his sale, he is lying to the buyer. That is fraud, plain and simple, independent of whether you think he should be allowed to bid on his own item. If he wants to do that, he's free to use another site that uses different auction rules. Heck, if he'd simply post a notice in his eBay auction that he reserves the right to raise the price arbitrarily, I'd argue he's morally clear. However, eBay would be perfectly within their rights to reject his sale if they don't wish to engage in that sort of auction.
I don't know if I've said anything new, but I am not irrationally rejecting your argument. I'm rationally rejecting it in the specific case of an auction on a site according to the specific rules of that site. Sellers are completely free to sell according to any rules they want (subject, of course, to the fair trade laws of their state/country), but they're not free to lie to the buyer about the terms under which they're selling.
The one who has it at the moment freely chose to sell it in a forum where bidding on your own sale or arranging for others to do this is expressly forbidden. One that has legitimate mechanisms for voiding or preventing a sale below any target the seller feels is the minimum acceptable price. The seller is materially misrepresenting the terms of the sale to the buyer. That's fraud, plain and simple, and if you really believe your argument, you need to pull your head out of wherever it's stuck.
It's one thing to ask someone what they're willing to pay and then sell them at that price and another to fraudulently force that selling price by violating the rules under which an offer is made. eBay has means to ensure that you don't have to sell your item at a loss, so I have no sympathy for the argument that these sellers are merely protecting themselves when they need to get a certain amount.
There are many reasons why it's desirable to list a low-starting bid, no-reserve auction. These are attractive to bidders because they have the potential to be a really good deal. If you want this sort of attraction to your auction, then you have to accept the risk that you'll give away a few good deals if there's not the market you were hoping for. Cheating to eliminate that risk is fraud, plain and simple. Even if no one pays more than they were WILLING to pay, they pay more than they SHOULD have paid, according to the rules of the market.
The point is not that people pay more than they're willing to pay, it's that they pay more than the legitimate auction price. Any way you look at it, it's fraud. The bidder is offering to pay up to $X to defeat honest competition, but the rules say that he pays less if there are no competing bids. If the seller just pushes that up to his limit, he's breaking the rules under which that offer was made. It breaks the system.
That's not to say it would be wrong to implement a straight bidding system where an offer of $100 is an offer of $100. But that's not the system that's being used, so shilling is fraud and tantamount to theft of the difference between the price due to legitimate bid competition and the shilled-up selling price.
If you bid $100 in an ebay auction, that means you'll pay up to $100 for it, but less if there is no competition for the item. Manufacturing false competition to drive up prices is fraud and against the spirit of the auction, even if no one is forced to pay more than they're willing to pay.
If the rules were simpler and you simply entered a fixed bid, then what you say would apply. However, the rules say you'll only pay a small amount more than the next highest bid. Pumping that up via fake bidding breaks the system.
Unless, maybe, she agrees with the civil libertarian perspective on privacy but not on other issues. I guess that's impossible, since every politician falls completely into line with a particular well-established party line (except where they're pandering)...
Yeah, sorry about my supposedly better example. I was typing with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other -- not a recipe for clear thinking. I realized a short time later that it made no sense... Still, I think the overall point was simply that few actions are inherently right or wrong, and it seems we agree on this (at least as a moral viewpoint that may not be shared by everyone).
The quote itself, "Two wrongs don't make a right," is a sound-bite so obviously shouldn't be taken too seriously. Still, I don't see how it instructs you to ignore context. It all comes down to what you consider a wrong. For example (hopefully more on-point this time), if you're punched in the face on the playground, you've been wronged. That's wrong number one. Is it right or wrong to punch the offender in the face in retaliation?
Here, it comes down to context. I'd argue that if he is going to hit you again, then you have the right to defend yourself and it'd not be a second wrong to strike him in self-defense. Your action is intended to protect yourself and is not a second wrong. On the other hand, if you find him on the playground the next day and give him a sock in the face, you're now seeking only revenge and it's no longer acceptable -- a second wrong has been committed.
How is the quote relevant here? In the first, your self-defense prevents further violence. It may be a violent act, but the overall result is your own protection. In the second, you're becoming the aggressor in a new iteration of the infamous "cycle of violence."
Now, I'll admit that this nuance isn't captured very well by the quote, I don't think it's as ambiguous as you make out. Of course, whether state punishments like prison and the death penalty are constructive means of defending society against ills or they fall into the category of being wrong themselves. However, it is worth noting that we don't practice an "eye for an eye" system of punishment. Someone convicted of assault for punching you in the face will be imprisoned, not punched back in the face. In that regard, the quote is being respected.
I seem to be pimping the 33s a lot in this thread, but what the heck... The build quality on my HP-33s is quite good. It feels very solid and the buttons have a reassuringly (but not uncomfortably) stiff feel to them. It feels like it's going to hold up to a lot of use. Plus, it comes with a nice leather-like case. I haven't dropped it, but other than the omnipresent risk of an LCD cracking, I wouldn't be too worried about it if I did.
True, the ability to see your expression is nice. Personally, I prefer RPN, but there are times when it's nice to have the whole thing written out. I've not actually seen a TI-89, but I got kind of turned off to all the TI's because the screens on both the ones I had started dying due to wear and tear after a short time. They didn't go through any abuse more serious than being carried around in a back pack. The HP calculators feel a lot more solid to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Better hope not everyone is too smart to upgrade, or we'll be stuck forever. SOMEONE has to go first.
Sure, if there's no generic, then there's no choice but to prescribe the name brand. For something that does have generics, it doesn't make sense for the doc to keep calling for the name brand. It perpetuates the idea that there's something "second class" about generic products.
I thought the same at first, actually, then one of them spontaneously broke (I think it started linking to a story about its being a googlebomb instead).
Google's explanation for why they hadn't fixed this in the past was that Googlebombs never displaced useful searches. That is, they didn't get in the way of many people actually trying to find information. The canonical, "miserable failure" example illustrates this -- is there any reason to expect that Google would give you useful hits for that search? I can't think of a reason to use that search that unless you were just curious about what Google would return.
It was clear from Google's release that they considered the Googlebombs a perhaps amusing nuisance, but it wasn't something they supported. Rather, it just wasn't worth the effort of fixing since that effort would be at the cost of other development that they felt would do more to improve user searches.
Now, they found that people were assuming these funny responses were somehow endorsed by Google. They could put up a disclaimer, but a) not many people actually read fine print, and b) many would not believe the disclaimer anyway. Since the Googlebombs didn't actually serve any useful purpose and Google didn't want to be mistaken for endorsing whatever might be inferred from the presence of these odd search results, they did away with it. That's perfectly legitimate.
So, Google really DID claim they were making a minor improvement to their search results through this change, but that wasn't the highest priority. It's not like they've got any particular duty to maintain details of the PageRank algorithm. Further, protecting their image IS an important goal, particularly when it can be done through a means that has a positive impact on the searches. Too bad that a cute Google game is gone, but another one will crop up before long, I'm sure...
Oh, wait...
No, he was correct. His statement was "a bomb looks like a bomb." That is, in if-then format, "If an object is a bomb then it looks like a bomb."
If that statement is true, then so is "If an object does not look like a bomb then it is not a bomb." That is simply (A=>B)=>(~B=>~A) which doesn't require iff.
You and I agree that you will buy a CD from me. The price will be determined by a coin flip -- we'll toss a fair coin and if it's heads, you pay $25. If it's tails, you'll pay $5. When you're not looking, I change the coin for one that is heads on both sides. Do you have a problem with that?
Breaking the rules to increase the price a bidder must pay amounts to lying, cheating, and fraud. If you don't see why this is wrong, then you're either not very smart or not very honest.
It's perhaps unwise to use a site like eBay and expect not to be scammed, so perhaps its users are suckers. "Everyone else is doing it" doesn't make wrong into right. My only point is that the "suckers" are being defrauded by cheaters. At the very least these shills are violating the eBay terms of service, and quite possibly fair trade laws as well.
Personally, I haven't bought anything of significant value on eBay ever, and nothing at all for several years. Mostly this is because it's just not worth the trouble to me. Still, it irritates me to see illegitimate practices defended on grounds that they're hard to stop.
It's simply not the deal you sign up for when you place a bid. The bidder can't win the auction and then decide to pay less than his winning bid.
If the seller is not willing to let the auction run by the eBay rules (which, right or wrong, includes a no-shill rule), he is not free to just decide to ignore the rules. If he doesn't inform the bidders that he's making this change to the contract under which they're placing their bids, then he's deceiving them, plain and simple.
That eBay would de-list his auction and probably cancel his account is immaterial. If the seller is not comfortable running auctions in a format compatible with eBay, then he's free to find another forum on which to run his auctions.
It's also immaterial that no one can be forced to pay more than they're willing to pay. The fact is, they're entering a process with an understanding of how the final price will be determined. Shilling changes that process to their detriment. You can argue that shilling should be openly allowed, but it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument that deceiving the bidders is a legitimate practice.
The critical difference is the set of rules under which the bids are made. In your example, two people who are interested in buying the item are competing with each other and they settle on a price. Both they and the seller knew the arrangement when the process started and none has a reason to be upset.
On eBay, the rules are different. The rules are that proxy bidding is the order of the day and that the seller is expressly forbidden from shilling. If the seller does bid to increase the price of the item, he is deceiving the buyer. It is immaterial whether the buyer was willing to pay the price he was shilled to, the point is that, under the rules he accepted when he tendered his bid, he should have paid less.
It doesn't matter whether he got a good deal or a bad deal in the end. He got a worse deal than he should have gotten under the rules he agreed to. He was defrauded and it cost him the difference between his winning bid and one bidding increment greater than the next highest bid. As eBay points out (or did the last time I was there, several years ago), your bid is a contract. That contract is made under terms that don't allow shills -- the seller is NOT free to change the rules if he expects his buyers to honor their end of the deal.
You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether it's right or wrong to allow shills, but it doesn't matter. The simple fact is that the rules on eBay don't allow them. Sellers using them are fraudulently deceiving the bidders in their auctions and there's really no room to argue that they're in the right on that.
:-) Thanks
First of all, I don't buy anything on eBay any more. I used it about 5 years ago to buy a few video games that were essentially unavailable otherwise.
Second, I've been careful to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with an auction which allows a seller to increase the price as he desires. There's nothing wrong with selling an item at a fixed price. There's nothing wrong with soliciting secret bids from potential buyers, choosing the highest bid, adding 50%, and offering it to the highest bidder at that price and canceling the sale if he refuses.
What IS wrong is entering into a binding agreement to sell an item at $1.00 (or whatever increment) greater than the second highest bid, subject to the constraint that bidding on your own item (directly or indirectly through a proxy) is not to be allowed, then secretly bidding on your own item. The buyers are bidding subject to one set of rules and the seller is selling subject to another. Further, he is misrepresenting the terms of his sale.
Whether the buyer has a right to expect a deal or not doesn't enter into it. The moment the seller violates the terms under which he's offered his sale, he is lying to the buyer. That is fraud, plain and simple, independent of whether you think he should be allowed to bid on his own item. If he wants to do that, he's free to use another site that uses different auction rules. Heck, if he'd simply post a notice in his eBay auction that he reserves the right to raise the price arbitrarily, I'd argue he's morally clear. However, eBay would be perfectly within their rights to reject his sale if they don't wish to engage in that sort of auction.
I don't know if I've said anything new, but I am not irrationally rejecting your argument. I'm rationally rejecting it in the specific case of an auction on a site according to the specific rules of that site. Sellers are completely free to sell according to any rules they want (subject, of course, to the fair trade laws of their state/country), but they're not free to lie to the buyer about the terms under which they're selling.
The one who has it at the moment freely chose to sell it in a forum where bidding on your own sale or arranging for others to do this is expressly forbidden. One that has legitimate mechanisms for voiding or preventing a sale below any target the seller feels is the minimum acceptable price. The seller is materially misrepresenting the terms of the sale to the buyer. That's fraud, plain and simple, and if you really believe your argument, you need to pull your head out of wherever it's stuck.
It's one thing to ask someone what they're willing to pay and then sell them at that price and another to fraudulently force that selling price by violating the rules under which an offer is made. eBay has means to ensure that you don't have to sell your item at a loss, so I have no sympathy for the argument that these sellers are merely protecting themselves when they need to get a certain amount.
There are many reasons why it's desirable to list a low-starting bid, no-reserve auction. These are attractive to bidders because they have the potential to be a really good deal. If you want this sort of attraction to your auction, then you have to accept the risk that you'll give away a few good deals if there's not the market you were hoping for. Cheating to eliminate that risk is fraud, plain and simple. Even if no one pays more than they were WILLING to pay, they pay more than they SHOULD have paid, according to the rules of the market.
The point is not that people pay more than they're willing to pay, it's that they pay more than the legitimate auction price. Any way you look at it, it's fraud. The bidder is offering to pay up to $X to defeat honest competition, but the rules say that he pays less if there are no competing bids. If the seller just pushes that up to his limit, he's breaking the rules under which that offer was made. It breaks the system.
That's not to say it would be wrong to implement a straight bidding system where an offer of $100 is an offer of $100. But that's not the system that's being used, so shilling is fraud and tantamount to theft of the difference between the price due to legitimate bid competition and the shilled-up selling price.
If you bid $100 in an ebay auction, that means you'll pay up to $100 for it, but less if there is no competition for the item. Manufacturing false competition to drive up prices is fraud and against the spirit of the auction, even if no one is forced to pay more than they're willing to pay.
If the rules were simpler and you simply entered a fixed bid, then what you say would apply. However, the rules say you'll only pay a small amount more than the next highest bid. Pumping that up via fake bidding breaks the system.
Thanks. :-)
Unless, maybe, she agrees with the civil libertarian perspective on privacy but not on other issues. I guess that's impossible, since every politician falls completely into line with a particular well-established party line (except where they're pandering)...
Yeah, sorry about my supposedly better example. I was typing with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other -- not a recipe for clear thinking. I realized a short time later that it made no sense... Still, I think the overall point was simply that few actions are inherently right or wrong, and it seems we agree on this (at least as a moral viewpoint that may not be shared by everyone).
The quote itself, "Two wrongs don't make a right," is a sound-bite so obviously shouldn't be taken too seriously. Still, I don't see how it instructs you to ignore context. It all comes down to what you consider a wrong. For example (hopefully more on-point this time), if you're punched in the face on the playground, you've been wronged. That's wrong number one. Is it right or wrong to punch the offender in the face in retaliation?
Here, it comes down to context. I'd argue that if he is going to hit you again, then you have the right to defend yourself and it'd not be a second wrong to strike him in self-defense. Your action is intended to protect yourself and is not a second wrong. On the other hand, if you find him on the playground the next day and give him a sock in the face, you're now seeking only revenge and it's no longer acceptable -- a second wrong has been committed.
How is the quote relevant here? In the first, your self-defense prevents further violence. It may be a violent act, but the overall result is your own protection. In the second, you're becoming the aggressor in a new iteration of the infamous "cycle of violence."
Now, I'll admit that this nuance isn't captured very well by the quote, I don't think it's as ambiguous as you make out. Of course, whether state punishments like prison and the death penalty are constructive means of defending society against ills or they fall into the category of being wrong themselves. However, it is worth noting that we don't practice an "eye for an eye" system of punishment. Someone convicted of assault for punching you in the face will be imprisoned, not punched back in the face. In that regard, the quote is being respected.
I seem to be pimping the 33s a lot in this thread, but what the heck... The build quality on my HP-33s is quite good. It feels very solid and the buttons have a reassuringly (but not uncomfortably) stiff feel to them. It feels like it's going to hold up to a lot of use. Plus, it comes with a nice leather-like case. I haven't dropped it, but other than the omnipresent risk of an LCD cracking, I wouldn't be too worried about it if I did.
I highly recommend the 33s. The oddly-shaped buttons are not as bad as they look.
True, the ability to see your expression is nice. Personally, I prefer RPN, but there are times when it's nice to have the whole thing written out. I've not actually seen a TI-89, but I got kind of turned off to all the TI's because the screens on both the ones I had started dying due to wear and tear after a short time. They didn't go through any abuse more serious than being carried around in a back pack. The HP calculators feel a lot more solid to me.