Would you rather new treatments were rushed to market without real science to back them, and let patients discover the side effects for themselves?
If they really want to, yes. Most people will look for certified and tested products. Seeing as the only alternative is to threaten patients, doctors, and vendors with theft and/or rapecages, allowing patients to experiment with medicines is the more moral choice. Since nobody has infinite financial resources, medicine/treatment consumers will usually seek products and services with positive reputations to maximize their purchasing power. Granted, some people still buy potato chips, but we can't seek to control all behavior.
If it's all above-ground, problems can be handled with the courts and with counter-advertising. By keeping the stuff illegal, patients still get the treatments they want (perhaps to a lesser degree) but have little recourse and cannot inform the market when there are problems.
You only need to look at my blogspam queue to see how active the underground medicine market is.
If they had eaten a nice fatty piece of meat, they would be walking away feeling satisfied.
And fiber too. I can't eat more than a handful of nuts or one apple. Minimally-processed foods in general tend to be filling. Too much fructose is bad, though - a pound of apples a day won't keep the bariatric surgeon away.
What's annoying is there is no real "patch" as such. You have to install the entire 77mb package from scratch and it installs crap like the yahoo toolbar by default.
You might be able to save a bit of money over Dell by building your own machines, but only if you consider your payroll a fixed cost. You can buy a lot of Dell machines at $1000 a pop for what a technician makes in a year.
I had a local company go with home-built because of the crap service they were getting from Dell and the ever-changing parts list on the low-end desktops that everybody here is talking about. That tech you mention was the price of a Dell Gold support contract. The capital cost savings are small, but having a standardized build at the low-end-Dell prices is where the savings come in to play.
Well, since this is the de-facto AWD thread, is this RAV4 going to be 2WD or AWD? I'd actually dump my Subaru for one if it were AWD. And put up the solar panels to charge it.
Sorry, desert dwellers, I live where I have to dodge falling trees on icy roads on my way back from database server migrations at 2AM.
Hard to say if it's good or bad, but it looks to be the start of a fight.
Perhaps I'm overly rosy, but it seems like Oracle realizes they have no use for Ooo, wouldn't be a good for for Ooo, and are setting up the conditions for the group to stand on their own. With a little prodding.
Got to love the English. They make fun of Americans for misspelling and misusing the English language and then they proceed to come up with the most abstruse, cryptic, nonsensical slang terms imaginable.
C'mon, they at least usually use adjectives or verbs describing second or third order effects of the objects in question.
If instead of a highway from point A to point B, for travelers going all the way from A to B, what has more capacity: 4 +- lanes of asphalt driven by drivers, or a loading system at A and an unloading system at B? One would imagine multiple on and off ramps, and computer-controlled mux/demux of the carrying platforms.
I know, most people would rather pay $20 in gas + $20 in wear than a $20 toll, but, just supposin'.
Probably multiple stretches of tunnels would really be necessary with a 'pee break' station every 20 minutes or so. Sort of like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel, but you get to play cards with your kids instead of driving.
Not quite. I have two WAPs, one with WPA2-PSK connected to my internal LAN with a ridiculously long key, another open and isolated in a DMZ with very limited access to my LAN. As such, while the WAP isn't locked down, I'd argue it is secured.
Which is just how all WAP's should come out of the box:
MyNetwork SSID w/ WPA2 for LAN connectivity - include a couple keychain tags with the default 'AOL-style' password on it
GuestAccess SSID w/ no 'wire' encryption or local access controls. But with the traffic QoS'ed down to never take any bandwidth from the secure side or any LAN traffic. No outbound port 25, probably. There should be a physical slide switch, clearly marked, to turn this on and off. Perhaps even a captive portal for a ToS valid in the local jurisdiction.
Secure mechanism for auto-update for security holes as they're discovered.
Hijack HTTP requests on the secure side with a non-chinglish setup wizard to tell people to add a bookmark for changing their configuration later (mDNS service discovery, where art thou?)
I imagine somebody has already made a DD-WRT or Tomato build like this but that I've just been unable to find it.
The manufacturers have already started to get the color-coded RJ45 ports right.
I can't disagree with anything you said there. A friend of mine poured a year into an app and wound up selling it to a corporation for less than minimum-wage value because they saw opportunity for the app to be a loss leader for a subsequent revenue stream. Sort of like Skype can afford to give away an app because they're going to charge for minutes.
Would you say it's fair to conclude that the current business model is proving to be unsustainable? That the days of $5 apps are numbered? Or does it go on forever by way of PT Barnum reasoning and a high turnover of developers? I would have supposed apps would be free or $25+, depending on the motivation. The Marketplace can help with marketing and distribution costs, but everything else should apply to phone apps that applies to desktop apps.
Also, there's that weather app for pilots that's $130. I assume it's rigorously tested and priced accordingly for people who really value that sort of thing. Granted, that kind of app needs to be crash-proof, while e.g. a music player doesn't, but it's interesting that it's a top-seller in terms of quantity despite the price.
Contractual, no, but there are practical considerations that make that difficult. The Android market gives you very little space to describe your app as it is; I doubt you could fit an entire compatibility list in there. And not many users will copy a link out of a marketplace description and open the Browser to see what a longer list of compatibility notes.
Yeah, I described that badly. I was thinking more like an XML representation that the Marketplace could note for shoppers as their device having been tested or not. No need to make the users do that much work.
Agreed. $4600 will pay for the salary, benefits, and expenses of one tester for maybe 1/2 a month...salary, rent, equipment, insurance, taxes, benefits, etc...Labor isn't cheap.
One tester for 1/2 a month might get your app tested on two platform variants, depending on how complex (or not) your app is. There are now 100 platform variants... so getting enough testers, equipment, etc. for all variants of android can cost $230,000.
Agreed, that's about what I figured as well. At a quarter million Android devices sold per day the sheer size of the addressable market ought to make this cost tenable for serious apps. There's probably an opportunity for a testing lab to consolidate this effort - with a good scripting environment I suspect they could offer a broad-range hardware test to a developer for $100,000 or so for a given release.
Fart apps can have imperfect rendering on low volume devices, of course.
We're generally protected from Search and Seizure. There are only specific privacies guaranteed, such as medical records and school records.
I think the struggle here is weakly defined property rights. IMHO, my medical records and my school records are my property, therefore searches or seizures of them ought be forbidden, except by specific oath/affirmation and warrant. That's the conceived balance.
Courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for e-mail.
They have, but e-mail is a clear analog to 'papers'. The courts ruled against the intent of the Constitution here (shocker). It's not a very well done instrument, so these things happen.
It's not a far stretch to say that covers Facebook and other social networking sites as well. It immediately includes those sites when the user has e-mail notifications enabled.
Good point. I'd extend my above comments to Walls and hosted messaging services. They fit most definitions of 'property'.
Relying on a third-party for that action isn't action (i.e., relying on Facebook to keep your "private" actions isn't).
How is this any different than relying on the post office to keep your communications secret? Sure, there's a law on the books, but the law doesn't exist as an arbitrary coin-flip, it enforces peoples' natural expectations.
Facebook (for example) can operate legally and unethically at the same time - the two are related but frequently not intersecting concepts (that being an idea at least as old as St. Augustine, probably much more ancient).
But people nonetheless expect that Facebook will honor their privacy. Foolish, perhaps, but only insofar as most people are susceptible to sociopaths. Having sociopaths provide societal infrastructure... boy, that's a tough one. (perhaps why I have PGP and x.509 certs installed in my MUA...)
So it means that you have a lower return on investment, given that your testing costs are higher.
Right - this should be a simple cost/benefit analysis.
"I want access to these additional six million customers and it's going to cost me an additional $4600 per year to test for them. Worth it or not?"
Sure, 'free' would be lovely, in some kind of dream world. But "I want to have these customers and I don't want to bother testing for them," just smacks of greed and/or stupidity. Perhaps the smart developers will seek to stand out by letting people know they've actually tested their software on the device the potential customer owns.
Is there some sort of contractual obligation that precludes the developers from saying, "sorry, we haven't tested our app on this $130 non-flashable off-brand 7-inch Android tablet that you got from the local bedding supply store on clearance?"
Slashdot Mirror
Would you rather new treatments were rushed to market without real science to back them, and let patients discover the side effects for themselves?
If they really want to, yes. Most people will look for certified and tested products. Seeing as the only alternative is to threaten patients, doctors, and vendors with theft and/or rapecages, allowing patients to experiment with medicines is the more moral choice. Since nobody has infinite financial resources, medicine/treatment consumers will usually seek products and services with positive reputations to maximize their purchasing power. Granted, some people still buy potato chips, but we can't seek to control all behavior.
If it's all above-ground, problems can be handled with the courts and with counter-advertising. By keeping the stuff illegal, patients still get the treatments they want (perhaps to a lesser degree) but have little recourse and cannot inform the market when there are problems.
You only need to look at my blogspam queue to see how active the underground medicine market is.
If they had eaten a nice fatty piece of meat, they would be walking away feeling satisfied.
And fiber too. I can't eat more than a handful of nuts or one apple. Minimally-processed foods in general tend to be filling. Too much fructose is bad, though - a pound of apples a day won't keep the bariatric surgeon away.
What's annoying is there is no real "patch" as such. You have to install the entire 77mb package from scratch and it installs crap like the yahoo toolbar by default.
Presto will handle the deltarpms.
.but than theres to many cats right?
So, shoot the cats. Why's this hard?
You might be able to save a bit of money over Dell by building your own machines, but only if you consider your payroll a fixed cost. You can buy a lot of Dell machines at $1000 a pop for what a technician makes in a year.
I had a local company go with home-built because of the crap service they were getting from Dell and the ever-changing parts list on the low-end desktops that everybody here is talking about. That tech you mention was the price of a Dell Gold support contract. The capital cost savings are small, but having a standardized build at the low-end-Dell prices is where the savings come in to play.
Well, since this is the de-facto AWD thread, is this RAV4 going to be 2WD or AWD? I'd actually dump my Subaru for one if it were AWD. And put up the solar panels to charge it.
Sorry, desert dwellers, I live where I have to dodge falling trees on icy roads on my way back from database server migrations at 2AM.
Hard to say if it's good or bad, but it looks to be the start of a fight.
Perhaps I'm overly rosy, but it seems like Oracle realizes they have no use for Ooo, wouldn't be a good for for Ooo, and are setting up the conditions for the group to stand on their own. With a little prodding.
Congrats on the downmods - you must've royally pissed off some sky-wizard-worshiping financiers.
I propose ignoring Chertoff.
Sorry, bub, there's significant prior art on that one.
C'mon, they at least usually use adjectives or verbs describing second or third order effects of the objects in question.
That's really just the delta between wholesale and retail; same with any used car.
Wants to be free
William Jennings Bryant - have you been re-incarnated?
See Subject.
Somebody here's already looked into this:
If instead of a highway from point A to point B, for travelers going all the way from A to B, what has more capacity: 4 +- lanes of asphalt driven by drivers, or a loading system at A and an unloading system at B? One would imagine multiple on and off ramps, and computer-controlled mux/demux of the carrying platforms.
I know, most people would rather pay $20 in gas + $20 in wear than a $20 toll, but, just supposin'.
Probably multiple stretches of tunnels would really be necessary with a 'pee break' station every 20 minutes or so. Sort of like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel, but you get to play cards with your kids instead of driving.
But you're posting it online on Facebook for everybody to see.
Only if you don't set your privacy controls.
I've done software QA professionally, how about you?
Not quite. I have two WAPs, one with WPA2-PSK connected to my internal LAN with a ridiculously long key, another open and isolated in a DMZ with very limited access to my LAN. As such, while the WAP isn't locked down, I'd argue it is secured.
Which is just how all WAP's should come out of the box:
MyNetwork SSID w/ WPA2 for LAN connectivity - include a couple keychain tags with the default 'AOL-style' password on it
GuestAccess SSID w/ no 'wire' encryption or local access controls. But with the traffic QoS'ed down to never take any bandwidth from the secure side or any LAN traffic. No outbound port 25, probably. There should be a physical slide switch, clearly marked, to turn this on and off. Perhaps even a captive portal for a ToS valid in the local jurisdiction.
Secure mechanism for auto-update for security holes as they're discovered.
Hijack HTTP requests on the secure side with a non-chinglish setup wizard to tell people to add a bookmark for changing their configuration later (mDNS service discovery, where art thou?)
I imagine somebody has already made a DD-WRT or Tomato build like this but that I've just been unable to find it.
The manufacturers have already started to get the color-coded RJ45 ports right.
I can't disagree with anything you said there. A friend of mine poured a year into an app and wound up selling it to a corporation for less than minimum-wage value because they saw opportunity for the app to be a loss leader for a subsequent revenue stream. Sort of like Skype can afford to give away an app because they're going to charge for minutes.
Would you say it's fair to conclude that the current business model is proving to be unsustainable? That the days of $5 apps are numbered? Or does it go on forever by way of PT Barnum reasoning and a high turnover of developers? I would have supposed apps would be free or $25+, depending on the motivation. The Marketplace can help with marketing and distribution costs, but everything else should apply to phone apps that applies to desktop apps.
Also, there's that weather app for pilots that's $130. I assume it's rigorously tested and priced accordingly for people who really value that sort of thing. Granted, that kind of app needs to be crash-proof, while e.g. a music player doesn't, but it's interesting that it's a top-seller in terms of quantity despite the price.
Contractual, no, but there are practical considerations that make that difficult. The Android market gives you very little space to describe your app as it is; I doubt you could fit an entire compatibility list in there. And not many users will copy a link out of a marketplace description and open the Browser to see what a longer list of compatibility notes.
Yeah, I described that badly. I was thinking more like an XML representation that the Marketplace could note for shoppers as their device having been tested or not. No need to make the users do that much work.
Agreed. $4600 will pay for the salary, benefits, and expenses of one tester for maybe 1/2 a month...salary, rent, equipment, insurance, taxes, benefits, etc...Labor isn't cheap.
One tester for 1/2 a month might get your app tested on two platform variants, depending on how complex (or not) your app is. There are now 100 platform variants... so getting enough testers, equipment, etc. for all variants of android can cost $230,000.
Agreed, that's about what I figured as well. At a quarter million Android devices sold per day the sheer size of the addressable market ought to make this cost tenable for serious apps. There's probably an opportunity for a testing lab to consolidate this effort - with a good scripting environment I suspect they could offer a broad-range hardware test to a developer for $100,000 or so for a given release.
Fart apps can have imperfect rendering on low volume devices, of course.
Do you expect developers to buy one of each phone to test their apps on?
Absolutely. I'd also expect phone vendors to have a developer hardware discount program.
We're generally protected from Search and Seizure. There are only specific privacies guaranteed, such as medical records and school records.
I think the struggle here is weakly defined property rights. IMHO, my medical records and my school records are my property, therefore searches or seizures of them ought be forbidden, except by specific oath/affirmation and warrant. That's the conceived balance.
Courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for e-mail.
They have, but e-mail is a clear analog to 'papers'. The courts ruled against the intent of the Constitution here (shocker). It's not a very well done instrument, so these things happen.
It's not a far stretch to say that covers Facebook and other social networking sites as well. It immediately includes those sites when the user has e-mail notifications enabled.
Good point. I'd extend my above comments to Walls and hosted messaging services. They fit most definitions of 'property'.
Relying on a third-party for that action isn't action (i.e., relying on Facebook to keep your "private" actions isn't).
How is this any different than relying on the post office to keep your communications secret? Sure, there's a law on the books, but the law doesn't exist as an arbitrary coin-flip, it enforces peoples' natural expectations.
Facebook (for example) can operate legally and unethically at the same time - the two are related but frequently not intersecting concepts (that being an idea at least as old as St. Augustine, probably much more ancient).
But people nonetheless expect that Facebook will honor their privacy. Foolish, perhaps, but only insofar as most people are susceptible to sociopaths. Having sociopaths provide societal infrastructure... boy, that's a tough one. (perhaps why I have PGP and x.509 certs installed in my MUA...)
Gathering information from several public places is undercover work.
No, that's police work. 'Under-cover' explicitly involves deception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover
So it means that you have a lower return on investment, given that your testing costs are higher.
Right - this should be a simple cost/benefit analysis.
"I want access to these additional six million customers and it's going to cost me an additional $4600 per year to test for them. Worth it or not?"
Sure, 'free' would be lovely, in some kind of dream world. But "I want to have these customers and I don't want to bother testing for them," just smacks of greed and/or stupidity. Perhaps the smart developers will seek to stand out by letting people know they've actually tested their software on the device the potential customer owns.
Is there some sort of contractual obligation that precludes the developers from saying, "sorry, we haven't tested our app on this $130 non-flashable off-brand 7-inch Android tablet that you got from the local bedding supply store on clearance?"