Why would you care if there was a serial number in the CPU ? First of all, it would only matter if there was a software driver for it that would read out the serial number and do something with it. Secondly, even if that happened, the number isn't tied to any of your personal data, so it still wouldn't matter.
Every NIC already has a unique MAC address, and nobody cares about that.
I'm talking about the design and testing that was done before actual production started. As you may be aware, it takes a lot of effort to design a faster CPU.
When manufacturers deliberately downgrade the quality of their product, you have a market failure.
It's not a market failure if the downgraded product is sold for a lower price.
No, I said the design cost for the faster version was more. Production costs are very similar. The fact that the design is already done doesn't matter. The up-front cost of that design still needs to be earned back by higher prices.
For the same reason, a fancy software package costs more than the production cost of the DVD that it came on, and why some software DVDs are more expensive than others, even though they have the same number of bits on the disk.
By admitting that it costs them exactly the same to make the $200 processor as it does the $400 one (as it must, since they're serving up the exact same product in both cases)
You only count the raw manufacturing cost of turning a lump of silicon in a working CPU.
This is silly. Most of the cost will be in the design and testing efforts, which are probably higher for the $400 version than for the $200 version, even though the end result is the same piece of silicon.
Most people already eat too much food, so they don't need to eat anything extra to ride the bike for 5-10 miles per day.
Maybe riding the bike provides incentive to eat more, but without further data it would be a hasty conclusion. Maybe it is motorists who eat more because they are more likely to grab a candy bar after filling up.
Sounds like you have seriously messed up costs for your bike. I take my bike in every year to the bike shop to have it checked and fixed, and that costs about $40 each time. A flat tire I can usually fix myself for $1 in materials.
A similar yearly checkup for my car costs several times that amount. Insurance is even more. That's without even considering gasoline.
Space junk is also a problem in GEO, because it tends to concentrate in a narrow useful orbit. The only advantage is that relative velocities are small, so damage from collisions is not as severe. On the other hand, lack of atmospheric drag keeps the junk in orbit for much longer.
We could have launched a mission to Alpha Centauri by now if we pursued project Orion
I don't think the plans for project Orion involved slowing down at the destination, so it would be a rather pointless exercise of zipping through the Alpha Centauri system at 0.03 c, and hopefully taking a few blurry pictures of a planet before entering interstellar space again.
But we already have some data, so why not try to fill in the gaps right now ? The advantage is that even crazy ideas often tell you where to look for more data.
In the Netherlands, there is already very good public transportation. The train grid is dense, and trains run very frequently. Still, the capacity of the train network is only in the neighborhood of 15% of the road capacity. If you want to seriously reduce road traffic, train capacity needs to be doubled, which would be a huge challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you care if there was a serial number in the CPU ? First of all, it would only matter if there was a software driver for it that would read out the serial number and do something with it. Secondly, even if that happened, the number isn't tied to any of your personal data, so it still wouldn't matter.
Every NIC already has a unique MAC address, and nobody cares about that.
You can get the top level performance for the hardware. You just need to pay a bit more.
Or, look at it from the other way. If you don't need top performance, they'll give you a discount.
I'm talking about the design and testing that was done before actual production started. As you may be aware, it takes a lot of effort to design a faster CPU.
It's not a market failure if the downgraded product is sold for a lower price.
Yes they did. They just called it cash flow, and explained why this was the best measure of profits.
No, I said the design cost for the faster version was more. Production costs are very similar. The fact that the design is already done doesn't matter. The up-front cost of that design still needs to be earned back by higher prices.
For the same reason, a fancy software package costs more than the production cost of the DVD that it came on, and why some software DVDs are more expensive than others, even though they have the same number of bits on the disk.
How do you determine what something is worth, and why is that a better method than free market pricing ?
You only count the raw manufacturing cost of turning a lump of silicon in a working CPU.
This is silly. Most of the cost will be in the design and testing efforts, which are probably higher for the $400 version than for the $200 version, even though the end result is the same piece of silicon.
On the other hand, corporations produce all that CO2 because private individuals buy their stuff.
It takes quite a bit of fossil fuels for growing, processing, storing, packaging and transport of food.
If their price is good for either the standard, or for the upgraded version, I couldn't care less how it's done.
Most people already eat too much food, so they don't need to eat anything extra to ride the bike for 5-10 miles per day.
Maybe riding the bike provides incentive to eat more, but without further data it would be a hasty conclusion. Maybe it is motorists who eat more because they are more likely to grab a candy bar after filling up.
Cars also require lights at night, cause road damage, and require considerable infrastructure. Per traveled mile, those costs are higher for the car.
Unfortunately, some sort of force is needed to overcome the tragedy of the commons.
Not at all. I'm guessing it's mostly labor cost and profits.
Probably the same things the customer would have done with the money if he hadn't bought the bike, so it doesn't matter.
Sounds like you have seriously messed up costs for your bike. I take my bike in every year to the bike shop to have it checked and fixed, and that costs about $40 each time. A flat tire I can usually fix myself for $1 in materials.
A similar yearly checkup for my car costs several times that amount. Insurance is even more. That's without even considering gasoline.
Space junk is also a problem in GEO, because it tends to concentrate in a narrow useful orbit. The only advantage is that relative velocities are small, so damage from collisions is not as severe. On the other hand, lack of atmospheric drag keeps the junk in orbit for much longer.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_at_higher_altitudes
You're doing it wrong.
Both. We don't have the will to proceed with silly plans, and we lack the technology for a better plan.
I don't think the plans for project Orion involved slowing down at the destination, so it would be a rather pointless exercise of zipping through the Alpha Centauri system at 0.03 c, and hopefully taking a few blurry pictures of a planet before entering interstellar space again.
We have no reason to assume nature can be fully explained by elegant solutions. Maybe nature is just messy.
No, I didn't.
But we already have some data, so why not try to fill in the gaps right now ? The advantage is that even crazy ideas often tell you where to look for more data.
Space junk is already becoming a problem. Imagine what would happen if it were extremely cheap to put stuff in orbit...
1) The idea behind the plan is to stay cash neutral, by reducing fixed taxes, so there is no extra cash.
2) Same for wasting time.
3) Discouraging road use by high prices reduces throughput as well, maybe even more.
4) I'll agree on that one, but I don't think the difference is interesting enough to spend billions on a highly complex system.
In the Netherlands, there is already very good public transportation. The train grid is dense, and trains run very frequently. Still, the capacity of the train network is only in the neighborhood of 15% of the road capacity. If you want to seriously reduce road traffic, train capacity needs to be doubled, which would be a huge challenge.