If the hospital is tax payer funded, then you have every right as a taxpayer to take this memo to the board.
I would suggest that you gather a number of like minded taxpayers (and voters) and make a visit to the board to explain your stance.
You might want to do some research and find that your IT director got a free beer (golf trip) out of this. Fodder for the meeting.
You might have the right to do this; but consider the consequences; i.e. is it worth potentially losing your job or getting shunted aside? Poking a dog in the eye gets its attention but also may provoke a response that harms you. Accusing someone of malfeasance really puts you in a good position.
Generally, when forced to publicly defend their position, leadership tends to strengthen their support of their position and finds ways to discredit the opposition. At any rate; that doesn't get them to consider open source but just makes it more of an enemy.
A far better way, IMHO, is first to define how OSS can do the job better - not just cheaper, but really better. Change is hard; and changing just to save money, especially when it involves systems that currently are viewed as working, is ngh on impossible. So, if you are serious about this:
1. Determine the requirements of current systems and how well the current solutions meet those requirements; a cost benefit analysis will also show if ot is truly worth switching.
2. Identify an area where OSS software can do that better without impacting any other areas; implicit in this is who will provide support or add needed features? "The community" is not the right answer.
3. Propose a small scale pilot to see if the solution will really work and be better.
4. If 3 is successful, then you can look at a doing cost/benefit analysis for a broader rollout; and then getting support for switching.
This type of approach builds support for your concept rather than creating an adversarial relationship from the start.
One of the issues facing OSS is the zealot's desire to have it be everywhere simply because *they* believe it is a better way. That's nice, but in the real world people need to be convinced and it needs to be better than what currently is in use. People simply want solutions that work.
While we all like to laugh at stupid user tricks, the real problem is a lack of communication.
no. the real problem is that the user is stupid or ignorant or both.
You've hit on an even more fundamental problem - if a support person has the attitude that the users are stupid or ignorant or both then they've already setup an adversarial relationship unnecessarily.
Years ago when I ran a help desk if one of my staff displayed such an attitude I showed them the door. No matter how technically competent they were such an attitude caused more problems than it fixed; and I was lucky that the support we provided was pretty straight forward so I had no problem getting qualified staff with a more positive approach.
My comments are not aimed at you - but a general viewpoint I have come to over the years.
yes. i agree with your conclusion if not with your premise (and remember: quite often their frame of reference is that of a stupid or ignorant person)
a good tech support person will try to teach the user - even if you know it's futile, even if you know they'll forget it 5 seconds after the problem is solved because you've already taught the same person the exact same thing many times before.
I agree - in the end they are your customers and your success depends on satisfying them.
I doubt that most of the "scalped" tickets are actually sold by scalpers. Most are probably sold by friends and employees of the event and/or venue.
I really don't know what percentage is insiders vs ticket brokers - though I'd bet some of the insider sales go right to a broker since if you had a steady supply you could build a profitable two way relationship.
Think about it--before tickets go on sale, roadies and janitors get a chance to buy premium seats at face value, maybe even with an employee discount. The performers don't care, the venue doesn't have to pay employment taxes on this unofficial employee benefit, and the employee gets some extra cash.
I'm not sure I agree with the don't care part - in the end they "lose" money; as a result I'd be surprised in low level insiders got more than a small percentage of the seats available. If they could get larger amounts it would be in their own interest to become a broker.
In the end it comes down to cash - promoters and talent see brokers making a lot of it and want a piece of the action. I'm surprised no one has gotten a state to pass a "fair share" law requiring brokers to give back a cut of their profits. Of course, the original sellers wouldn't have to issue refunds for tickets that the brokers took a loss on; after all the promoters and talent want rewards without the associated risks.
Start the price offensively high, and drop it as the concert date approaches. The organiser gets paid the price the market will bear, the scalpers are out of the loop - because by definition, anyone willing to pay a stupid price for a guaranteed ticket will already have paid it.
You still get the same effective problem - that rich fans are prioritised over poor fans, but more money goes to the artist and the organiser, so they could throw a few benefit concerts or something to sweeten the deal.
The problem is promoters and talent want two things - sold out venues and maximum price per ticket. Scalpers act as a hedge against lost sales and inaccurate demand / pricing - they take the risk of getting stuck with tickets or losing money; something promoters don't want to accept themselves. Dutch auctions would probably condition people to wait because they learn prices will fill - which causes prices to fall - and promoters have no idea how much money they make nad when. They hate scalpers because, in their mind, they are taking "their" money; and convenientlyignore the risk mitigation role.
Laws barring reselling of tickets, IMHO, merely serve to restrict the market and raise ticket prices overall so promoters can make more money. There is no rational reason to bar ticket reselling anymore than to bar reselling of any other good.
My favorite, from the old days, was when I was trying to talk a reluctant secretary through some minor DOS voodoo. I asked if anything was on the screen. She said no. I asked, "do you mean to say that it is completely black, with no letters anywhere?" Well, no, of course not - it just said C:\DOS>
While we all like to laugh at stupid user tricks, the real problem is a lack of communication. In your example, you wanted to know what was on the screen and it seemed reasonable to ask if anything was on the screen; to the secretary, her answer was correct because , for here, something on the screen means "I have something I have opened" on the screen.
One thing I have learned is don't think the other person understood what you said - their frame of reference may be different and you need to consider that when communicating.
I doubt it - the cabinets would be a part of a greater work, just like a picture of a building that includes a sculpture in front of the building would not violate the artists copyright.
So in other words, just like the photo of the war memorial includes the ground the statues are standing on, as well as who knows what all else?
No, since the statue is the primary focus of the stamp - unlike a photo where it would be merely one element - such as a shot of the mall.
> They own the piece of art. They don't own the work.
> For example, if you buy one of two hundred prints of an artist's latest painting, you just own
> a print, but the artist retains ownership of the IP (the painting) and all copies (the print).
I once spoke to an artist in a market fair. She was selling paintings and prints of paintings.
I was thinking of buying a painting from her. I asked if I would have the right to make prints of the painting I bought. She said I wouldn't - the rights remained with her.
I did not buy her painting.
Why this attitude from artists? It's not like there's a finite supply of artistry within an artist and it dries up in a decade - its lasts a lifetime.
?quote>
Probably because you didn't want to pay for the right to make prints in addition to buying the original. The creator of a piece of work gets to decide how it may be used; that is a fundamental concept that enable ssuch things as the GPL.
What next? I take pictures of my new kitchen for 'Better Homes and Gardens' and the cabinet makers sue me?
I doubt it - the cabinets would be a part of a greater work, just like a picture of a building that includes a sculpture in front of the building would not violate the artists copyright.
I'm engaged to one that is pretty, very functional, AND low in cost;-)
Be very careful with the low cost part - it's the old razor and blades model; in fact the razor / blades model was probably base don teh earlier human interaction one.
On one side of the aisle you have the scummy rent-seeking corporatists. And on the other side you have the anti-corporate socialist 'progressives.' Neither side of the political debate want a free market. Both sides want the government to set rules to benefit special interests. The only difference is which. And so the free market is strangled to death. Crushed under the weight of regulations, subsidies, fat government contracts and handouts.
The only times the free market has ever truly reigned is when it explodes and outpaces, for a short time, the long arm of political meddling.
That is not a new idea - companies and people have been using regulation to stifle competition and limit entry for a very long time. It's called regulatory capture. Some economist one a Nobel for writing about it a number of year ago.
If you look at how many presentations, etc., Bob did at the recent NMRA (National Model Railroading Association) conference, he hardly got snuffed. It almost looks as if people were going to the conference just to see him.
Katzer spent a lot of money, has no product he can legally sell today (his web site currently only points to a list of articles) and his reputation is in the pits over this with anyone who might have otherwise been a customer.
It surprises me that a business would seek to alienate their customer base; especially one that is relatively small and somewhat tight knit. Hobbyists, especially serious ones, spend a a lot of time with other hobbyists with similar interests and reputations are made and lost via word of mouth. Getting them mad is a good way to lose business and potentially ago out of business; especially if you sell a niche product.
Cobra was already mentioned - good but pricey option; at least you can gap you coverage until you find new coverage. I'd also look to see if your university offers some sort of "GradMed" plan for alumni / grads. Also consider a high deductible to lower premium costs and create a savings account to cover the deductible.
Something else that may be a viable alternative: do you have a spouse who can work for insurance benefits? I know several self employed people who's spouses work primarily for the benefits; not just for the short term but ultimately so they have insurance when they retire.
Finally, talk to your tax adviser and check with several insurance agents to see what is available at what cost. There are many considerations, including "am I and is my family insurable?" The potential financial impact of that could be catastrophic. Get real, not/., advice.
Well, then what happens when I try to take my copy of the game to a friend's house to show him how awesome the online part is, or because he has a better gaming setup than I do, or any number of reasons? From the description, it sounds like if I do that, I'm going to have to pay $20 for the privilege.
While I realize you are making a general comment about Sony's model; the notion of one PSP gaming setup being better than another strikes me as odd.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
That's only a flipside for right now.
As reported elsewhere on Slashdot, they are rapidly moving toward the online-only-play model, in a misguided effort to thwart piracy.
It'll be interesting to see how the game market reacts to that. Will gamers accept that sort of model? I don't know.
"In the US (YMMV) you have a right to do anything you want with your physical copy of the game (outside of making illicit copies). However, any rights for any subscription services are not "basic" - they depend on the contract/license for the service."
This is not true. We have the Doctrine of First Sale. If I pay for a game, that means all features. When I resell that game, the purchaser expects the exact same thing.
Forcing the second purchaser to pay extra money to access what should come with the game AS ADVERTISED is fraud in the purest sense.
First of all - a while back I did some research into the doctrine of first sale for an article I wrote. After contacting several lawyers to get real legal opinions, I discovered the "Doctrine of First Sale" is not all that cut and dry. Slashdot opinion aside, it varies from state to state and it simply paying money for an item does not automatically convey the right to resell it.
Online features could, for example, be part of a non-transferable license to the original owner. I would like the DOFS to be absolute but unfortunately it is not. YMMV depending on location.
How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
And that's grounds for legal action because? Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
True, but the onus is on them to stop use of "their" IP. They'd have the bring the suit in the US to stop anyone from using the name here, and within the context of that suit they WOULD be subject to the laws of the US.
Yes, and under US law they have a virtual monopoly over the name "Olympic." Not sure how that ties to the use of an athlete's name; but if it included the word Olympic they might have the right to stop its use.
True. Insurance is a scam, a fraud. To paraphrase a comedian (Steven Wright maybe?), my car insurance company is betting that I'll not wreck my car, and I'm betting that I will.
Not really. The insurance company is deciding it can accurately predict the rate of loss and costs for a given vehicle / driver / location and make money off of that analysis. they have reams of data to base their analysis on so they can be pretty accurate over a large enough pool. They can also reinsure the risk to spread it around. They can even pay more out in claims then they make in premiums and still make money.
You are deciding that you cannot afford to suffer the loss of your vehicle and so by insurance; with a deductible that balances your affordable loss with the cost of insurance.
Now, is electronic gadget extended warranties cost - effective? I generally say no - mainly because today's gadgets are pretty reliable and your actual loss rate is probably less than the cost of buying them for everything you purchase. In addition, your homeowner's insurance may cover the more likely losses - theft, breakage - at a more reasonable cost.
About the only one I think is worth considering is Apple's AppleCare - the are reasonably prices, IMHO, cover variety of products for one price, and include real tech support when needed.
If my knowledge of power plants is correct, it takes some time to spin one up to full capacity (like 12 to 24 hours), so if there is a spike in usage, they may not be prepared. For example, an unexpected hot day may require more power because people are running their air conditioners for longer duty cycles. An unexpected outage at one of their plants could hurt the situation also.
There are three types off plants (in order of increasing cost of power):
Baseload - plants that you want to run at 100% all the time (such as nukes)
Load Following - plants that adjust their output to match demand above baseload
Peakers - plants that you run only to satisfy spikes in demand. They generally are gas turbines or other sources that can be switched on and off rapidly. Some GT can be at full load in seconds.
There's also a spinning reserve that allows you to adjust for unexpected changes in supply or demand.
The graph provides no insight into how costs are allocated and determined across MS. Without an understanding of costing it's hard to say anything about product profitability; except that MS made a lot of money overall.
At one site (again, an impressive site), they had an absolutely huge DC room, and I was there a couple times when the received phone calls to turn on their generators because the power company needed the extra capacity. A couple 1Mw generators may make the difference between constant power, and widespread brownouts.
If 2Mw is the difference between widespread brownouts the electric company has suppl and or grid problems they need to address; especially if they need that power on any sort of repeat basis to avoid brownouts.
Most have programs designed to help business with power issues; they may have a solution that fits your needs and budget. It's free to ask; and you may wind up with an affordable maintenance free solution.
Slashdot Mirror
If the hospital is tax payer funded, then you have every right as a taxpayer to take this memo to the board.
I would suggest that you gather a number of like minded taxpayers (and voters) and make a visit to the board to explain your stance.
You might want to do some research and find that your IT director got a free beer (golf trip) out of this. Fodder for the meeting.
You might have the right to do this; but consider the consequences; i.e. is it worth potentially losing your job or getting shunted aside? Poking a dog in the eye gets its attention but also may provoke a response that harms you. Accusing someone of malfeasance really puts you in a good position.
Generally, when forced to publicly defend their position, leadership tends to strengthen their support of their position and finds ways to discredit the opposition. At any rate; that doesn't get them to consider open source but just makes it more of an enemy.
A far better way, IMHO, is first to define how OSS can do the job better - not just cheaper, but really better. Change is hard; and changing just to save money, especially when it involves systems that currently are viewed as working, is ngh on impossible. So, if you are serious about this:
1. Determine the requirements of current systems and how well the current solutions meet those requirements; a cost benefit analysis will also show if ot is truly worth switching.
2. Identify an area where OSS software can do that better without impacting any other areas; implicit in this is who will provide support or add needed features? "The community" is not the right answer.
3. Propose a small scale pilot to see if the solution will really work and be better.
4. If 3 is successful, then you can look at a doing cost /benefit analysis for a broader rollout; and then getting support for switching.
This type of approach builds support for your concept rather than creating an adversarial relationship from the start.
One of the issues facing OSS is the zealot's desire to have it be everywhere simply because *they* believe it is a better way. That's nice, but in the real world people need to be convinced and it needs to be better than what currently is in use. People simply want solutions that work.
no. the real problem is that the user is stupid or ignorant or both.
You've hit on an even more fundamental problem - if a support person has the attitude that the users are stupid or ignorant or both then they've already setup an adversarial relationship unnecessarily.
Years ago when I ran a help desk if one of my staff displayed such an attitude I showed them the door. No matter how technically competent they were such an attitude caused more problems than it fixed; and I was lucky that the support we provided was pretty straight forward so I had no problem getting qualified staff with a more positive approach.
My comments are not aimed at you - but a general viewpoint I have come to over the years.
yes. i agree with your conclusion if not with your premise (and remember: quite often their frame of reference is that of a stupid or ignorant person) a good tech support person will try to teach the user - even if you know it's futile, even if you know they'll forget it 5 seconds after the problem is solved because you've already taught the same person the exact same thing many times before.
I agree - in the end they are your customers and your success depends on satisfying them.
I doubt that most of the "scalped" tickets are actually sold by scalpers. Most are probably sold by friends and employees of the event and/or venue.
I really don't know what percentage is insiders vs ticket brokers - though I'd bet some of the insider sales go right to a broker since if you had a steady supply you could build a profitable two way relationship.
Think about it--before tickets go on sale, roadies and janitors get a chance to buy premium seats at face value, maybe even with an employee discount. The performers don't care, the venue doesn't have to pay employment taxes on this unofficial employee benefit, and the employee gets some extra cash.
I'm not sure I agree with the don't care part - in the end they "lose" money; as a result I'd be surprised in low level insiders got more than a small percentage of the seats available. If they could get larger amounts it would be in their own interest to become a broker.
In the end it comes down to cash - promoters and talent see brokers making a lot of it and want a piece of the action. I'm surprised no one has gotten a state to pass a "fair share" law requiring brokers to give back a cut of their profits. Of course, the original sellers wouldn't have to issue refunds for tickets that the brokers took a loss on; after all the promoters and talent want rewards without the associated risks.
How about a dutch auction?
Start the price offensively high, and drop it as the concert date approaches. The organiser gets paid the price the market will bear, the scalpers are out of the loop - because by definition, anyone willing to pay a stupid price for a guaranteed ticket will already have paid it.
You still get the same effective problem - that rich fans are prioritised over poor fans, but more money goes to the artist and the organiser, so they could throw a few benefit concerts or something to sweeten the deal.
The problem is promoters and talent want two things - sold out venues and maximum price per ticket. Scalpers act as a hedge against lost sales and inaccurate demand / pricing - they take the risk of getting stuck with tickets or losing money; something promoters don't want to accept themselves. Dutch auctions would probably condition people to wait because they learn prices will fill - which causes prices to fall - and promoters have no idea how much money they make nad when. They hate scalpers because, in their mind, they are taking "their" money; and convenientlyignore the risk mitigation role.
Laws barring reselling of tickets, IMHO, merely serve to restrict the market and raise ticket prices overall so promoters can make more money. There is no rational reason to bar ticket reselling anymore than to bar reselling of any other good.
My favorite, from the old days, was when I was trying to talk a reluctant secretary through some minor DOS voodoo. I asked if anything was on the screen. She said no. I asked, "do you mean to say that it is completely black, with no letters anywhere?" Well, no, of course not - it just said C:\DOS>
While we all like to laugh at stupid user tricks, the real problem is a lack of communication. In your example, you wanted to know what was on the screen and it seemed reasonable to ask if anything was on the screen; to the secretary, her answer was correct because , for here, something on the screen means "I have something I have opened" on the screen.
One thing I have learned is don't think the other person understood what you said - their frame of reference may be different and you need to consider that when communicating.
I doubt it - the cabinets would be a part of a greater work, just like a picture of a building that includes a sculpture in front of the building would not violate the artists copyright.
So in other words, just like the photo of the war memorial includes the ground the statues are standing on, as well as who knows what all else?
No, since the statue is the primary focus of the stamp - unlike a photo where it would be merely one element - such as a shot of the mall.
> They own the piece of art. They don't own the work. > For example, if you buy one of two hundred prints of an artist's latest painting, you just own > a print, but the artist retains ownership of the IP (the painting) and all copies (the print).
I once spoke to an artist in a market fair. She was selling paintings and prints of paintings.
I was thinking of buying a painting from her. I asked if I would have the right to make prints of the painting I bought. She said I wouldn't - the rights remained with her.
I did not buy her painting.
Why this attitude from artists? It's not like there's a finite supply of artistry within an artist and it dries up in a decade - its lasts a lifetime.
?quote> Probably because you didn't want to pay for the right to make prints in addition to buying the original. The creator of a piece of work gets to decide how it may be used; that is a fundamental concept that enable ssuch things as the GPL.
What next? I take pictures of my new kitchen for 'Better Homes and Gardens' and the cabinet makers sue me?
I doubt it - the cabinets would be a part of a greater work, just like a picture of a building that includes a sculpture in front of the building would not violate the artists copyright.
I'm engaged to one that is pretty, very functional, AND low in cost ;-)
Be very careful with the low cost part - it's the old razor and blades model; in fact the razor / blades model was probably base don teh earlier human interaction one.
The problem is, there aren't many free marketers.
On one side of the aisle you have the scummy rent-seeking corporatists. And on the other side you have the anti-corporate socialist 'progressives.' Neither side of the political debate want a free market. Both sides want the government to set rules to benefit special interests. The only difference is which. And so the free market is strangled to death. Crushed under the weight of regulations, subsidies, fat government contracts and handouts.
The only times the free market has ever truly reigned is when it explodes and outpaces, for a short time, the long arm of political meddling.
That is not a new idea - companies and people have been using regulation to stifle competition and limit entry for a very long time. It's called regulatory capture. Some economist one a Nobel for writing about it a number of year ago.
> Pull out the concealed Glock...
A "Glock"? Please. That's an Austrian pistol. Every freedom loving American carries an M1911A1.
Glocks are also made in Georgia, which as a result of some misunderstanding in VA, is part of the USA.
If you look at how many presentations, etc., Bob did at the recent NMRA (National Model Railroading Association) conference, he hardly got snuffed. It almost looks as if people were going to the conference just to see him.
Katzer spent a lot of money, has no product he can legally sell today (his web site currently only points to a list of articles) and his reputation is in the pits over this with anyone who might have otherwise been a customer.
It surprises me that a business would seek to alienate their customer base; especially one that is relatively small and somewhat tight knit. Hobbyists, especially serious ones, spend a a lot of time with other hobbyists with similar interests and reputations are made and lost via word of mouth. Getting them mad is a good way to lose business and potentially ago out of business; especially if you sell a niche product.
BTW - did he also get the SLAPP payments back?
Something else that may be a viable alternative: do you have a spouse who can work for insurance benefits? I know several self employed people who's spouses work primarily for the benefits; not just for the short term but ultimately so they have insurance when they retire.
Finally, talk to your tax adviser and check with several insurance agents to see what is available at what cost. There are many considerations, including "am I and is my family insurable?" The potential financial impact of that could be catastrophic. Get real, not /., advice.
Well, then what happens when I try to take my copy of the game to a friend's house to show him how awesome the online part is, or because he has a better gaming setup than I do, or any number of reasons? From the description, it sounds like if I do that, I'm going to have to pay $20 for the privilege.
While I realize you are making a general comment about Sony's model; the notion of one PSP gaming setup being better than another strikes me as odd.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
That's only a flipside for right now.
As reported elsewhere on Slashdot, they are rapidly moving toward the online-only-play model, in a misguided effort to thwart piracy.
It'll be interesting to see how the game market reacts to that. Will gamers accept that sort of model? I don't know.
"In the US (YMMV) you have a right to do anything you want with your physical copy of the game (outside of making illicit copies). However, any rights for any subscription services are not "basic" - they depend on the contract/license for the service."
This is not true. We have the Doctrine of First Sale. If I pay for a game, that means all features. When I resell that game, the purchaser expects the exact same thing.
Forcing the second purchaser to pay extra money to access what should come with the game AS ADVERTISED is fraud in the purest sense.
First of all - a while back I did some research into the doctrine of first sale for an article I wrote. After contacting several lawyers to get real legal opinions, I discovered the "Doctrine of First Sale" is not all that cut and dry. Slashdot opinion aside, it varies from state to state and it simply paying money for an item does not automatically convey the right to resell it.
Online features could, for example, be part of a non-transferable license to the original owner. I would like the DOFS to be absolute but unfortunately it is not. YMMV depending on location.
If I don't want to play online, am I allowed to return the code to Sony for a $20 refund? I should be.
No - you knew the online option was part of the deal when you bought it. You should be able to sell it separately.
How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
And that's grounds for legal action because? Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
True, but the onus is on them to stop use of "their" IP. They'd have the bring the suit in the US to stop anyone from using the name here, and within the context of that suit they WOULD be subject to the laws of the US.
Yes, and under US law they have a virtual monopoly over the name "Olympic." Not sure how that ties to the use of an athlete's name; but if it included the word Olympic they might have the right to stop its use.
True. Insurance is a scam, a fraud. To paraphrase a comedian (Steven Wright maybe?), my car insurance company is betting that I'll not wreck my car, and I'm betting that I will.
Not really. The insurance company is deciding it can accurately predict the rate of loss and costs for a given vehicle / driver / location and make money off of that analysis. they have reams of data to base their analysis on so they can be pretty accurate over a large enough pool. They can also reinsure the risk to spread it around. They can even pay more out in claims then they make in premiums and still make money.
You are deciding that you cannot afford to suffer the loss of your vehicle and so by insurance; with a deductible that balances your affordable loss with the cost of insurance.
Now, is electronic gadget extended warranties cost - effective? I generally say no - mainly because today's gadgets are pretty reliable and your actual loss rate is probably less than the cost of buying them for everything you purchase. In addition, your homeowner's insurance may cover the more likely losses - theft, breakage - at a more reasonable cost.
About the only one I think is worth considering is Apple's AppleCare - the are reasonably prices, IMHO, cover variety of products for one price, and include real tech support when needed.
Where I grew up, there was a nuclear plant nearby. When I was a kid, it usually managed to average 1 month/year online.
Which plant?
They should kick the people off who are jerks, to smell, too. Those are even more offensive
They do, in some cases.
If my knowledge of power plants is correct, it takes some time to spin one up to full capacity (like 12 to 24 hours), so if there is a spike in usage, they may not be prepared. For example, an unexpected hot day may require more power because people are running their air conditioners for longer duty cycles. An unexpected outage at one of their plants could hurt the situation also.
There are three types off plants (in order of increasing cost of power):
Baseload - plants that you want to run at 100% all the time (such as nukes)
Load Following - plants that adjust their output to match demand above baseload
Peakers - plants that you run only to satisfy spikes in demand. They generally are gas turbines or other sources that can be switched on and off rapidly. Some GT can be at full load in seconds.
There's also a spinning reserve that allows you to adjust for unexpected changes in supply or demand.
The graph provides no insight into how costs are allocated and determined across MS. Without an understanding of costing it's hard to say anything about product profitability; except that MS made a lot of money overall.
At one site (again, an impressive site), they had an absolutely huge DC room, and I was there a couple times when the received phone calls to turn on their generators because the power company needed the extra capacity. A couple 1Mw generators may make the difference between constant power, and widespread brownouts.
If 2Mw is the difference between widespread brownouts the electric company has suppl and or grid problems they need to address; especially if they need that power on any sort of repeat basis to avoid brownouts.
Most have programs designed to help business with power issues; they may have a solution that fits your needs and budget. It's free to ask; and you may wind up with an affordable maintenance free solution.