Have you ever worked a register? You have a small chance that a cashier would notice that the picture was of a wheelbarrow and the item was in fact a small diamond. However, if the picture is of a small diamond and the item a large diamond, forget it. Add in the logistics of keeping the database up to date (easy in theory, hard in practice), and it's just not worth it. Cashiers do catch stuff, but frankly it's a bonus.
Morgan Stanley may have dropped the ball on this one but except for the publicity, Facebook hit it out the park. They managed to place the entire issue at a ridiculous price before market reality set in. They are sitting on a mountain of cash. What the stock does in future is irrelevant - again, except for publicity (and the jobs of the board).
Scratch his head, state he doesn't understand it, and never look at it again. IIRC the only tech stock he's ever invested in is IBM and that on the back of their strength in consultancy.
Afghanistan is not some magical place where the nature of humanity is different. Previous inroads have failed because no-one understood insurgency amongst near stone-age populations and was willing to commit the resources required. The Victorians had neither. The Russions had the resources but lacked understanding. The coalition has the understanding (achieved late, and at a price, but we know how to do it now), but is politically incapable of committing to it. Which is fine; I agree it's difficult to believe that global safety depends on Afghanistan's system of government. But it could be done if we really wanted to.
Depends on the price. If you don't watch online video, you might well be paying less than under a flat rate.
Then what happens is the unlimited providers get left with the higher usage customers, and they then have to raise their prices. Customers at the bottom end realise they will pay less under usage-based pricing, and leave. Rinse, repeat.
Yes and no. But regular web-browsing is nothing compared to half an hour of Youtube. Per-megabyte pricing, though, would maybe help to discourage pagebloat and Web 2.0 gimmickry. And discouraging the people who torrent petabytes just because they can would do no harm.
Third world economies desperately need to transition from subsitence farming to producing cash crops. I'm no fan of Monsanto, but their actions will ultimately be beneficial.
The marginal multiplier of manufacturing jobs is much lower than for service workers. Adding extra workers to a factory doesn't add to the amount of maintainance the machinery requires, but adding service workers adds a certain amount of tech support requirement.
Of course, this is all very handwavey and it varies hugely by sector. But the point remains that industrial towns that have undergone this transformation succesfully now have higher employment than they did before.
Actually, labour costs are not a major factor in Apple products. Most of it is components and profit. The reason for manufacturing in China is that Foxconn can put fifty thousand workers on a new line tomorrow - which is exactly what happened when Steve Jobs decided the iPhone had to have a glass screen a few weeks before launch. No American factory could come close to the capacity required to make that switch in such a short timeframe.
Well, if you take my old home town - Glasgow - there are more people working in "knowledge" than there ever were in industry, and this was one of the UK's largest industrial cities.
Knowledge workers have massive multiplicative effects - meaning one knowledge worker typically creates a support base of several other workers - everything from tech support to delivery drivers. Manufacturing jobs don't do that.
You clearly have no idea how fucked up what you're asking for is. Tell him to solve his problems like a grown-up, or contact the police if his problem is that serious.
Otherwise, install net-nanny and move on. And you're a fool for taking this brain-dead project this far.
Because total disarmament is currently impossible because there is insufficient trust. Successful implementation of an arms reduction agreement brings the point where you have that trust closer.
Well, this is only talking about accidental death - not heart disease, etc. Accident rates are a fraction of biological cause rates except at young ages (10 or so), so the resulting life expectancy is much more sensitive.
It doesn't burn calories, it's an appetite suppressant. Off the top of my head, I would say second order effect. And although smoking is big in China, it's still only on the order of 30-40%.
It's hugely sensitive to local circumstances, because non-biological causes of death are low compared to other causes, and vary far more by country (lots more gunshot wounds in the US than the UK, for example). My figures are UK based, though I don't have a handy citation or know what the basis was, though I'd guess insured lives.
The lifespan of all humans everywhere won't increase by 25 years in a blink. It will take many, many years just until such a therapy becomes available to rich-world citizens, never mind the population as a whole. We'll have time to make the cultural adaptions necessary.
The increase would be significant; much more than 2 but probably less than the 30-40 years implied by extrapolation.
However, the point that is often missed here is that the calorific restriction involved is intolerable - it would leave you weak, lethargic, and with no quality of life. I can't remember the exact details, but it's of the order of 1000 calories a day for a man, less than half the standard recommended amount for weight maintainance.
Todays fun actuarial fact: if you strip out all biological causes of death, your life expectancy is about six thousand years (with, obviously, large variance).
Strategic purchases are almost inevitably wrong, but they still need to be made or when the next real shooting war starts we'll have no defence manufacturing capability at all. Depends on your definition of useful, of course. Much as I lament the loss of regiments, new infantry batallions can be spun up in months. New carrier? Don't plan to fight a war before the 2020s.
In fairness, Phil Hammond is by no means a desktop warrior. He's managed to rein in the MOD budget, something I didn't think I'd ever see. And he certainly doesn't come across as someone who enjoys playing soldiers.
Slashdot Mirror
From a resource usage perspective. Someone pays for bandwidth, and optimal allocation is not currently driven by economics.
Mental illness. Pure and simple. I don't understand why people are quite so keen to ascribe rationality to this.
Have you ever worked a register? You have a small chance that a cashier would notice that the picture was of a wheelbarrow and the item was in fact a small diamond. However, if the picture is of a small diamond and the item a large diamond, forget it. Add in the logistics of keeping the database up to date (easy in theory, hard in practice), and it's just not worth it. Cashiers do catch stuff, but frankly it's a bonus.
Morgan Stanley may have dropped the ball on this one but except for the publicity, Facebook hit it out the park. They managed to place the entire issue at a ridiculous price before market reality set in. They are sitting on a mountain of cash. What the stock does in future is irrelevant - again, except for publicity (and the jobs of the board).
Scratch his head, state he doesn't understand it, and never look at it again. IIRC the only tech stock he's ever invested in is IBM and that on the back of their strength in consultancy.
Afghanistan is not some magical place where the nature of humanity is different. Previous inroads have failed because no-one understood insurgency amongst near stone-age populations and was willing to commit the resources required. The Victorians had neither. The Russions had the resources but lacked understanding. The coalition has the understanding (achieved late, and at a price, but we know how to do it now), but is politically incapable of committing to it. Which is fine; I agree it's difficult to believe that global safety depends on Afghanistan's system of government. But it could be done if we really wanted to.
Then what happens is the unlimited providers get left with the higher usage customers, and they then have to raise their prices. Customers at the bottom end realise they will pay less under usage-based pricing, and leave. Rinse, repeat.
Yes and no. But regular web-browsing is nothing compared to half an hour of Youtube. Per-megabyte pricing, though, would maybe help to discourage pagebloat and Web 2.0 gimmickry. And discouraging the people who torrent petabytes just because they can would do no harm.
Third world economies desperately need to transition from subsitence farming to producing cash crops. I'm no fan of Monsanto, but their actions will ultimately be beneficial.
If we treated Afghanistan as seriously as we treated WWII, we might have been able to finish the job properly in the same amount of time.
Of course, this is all very handwavey and it varies hugely by sector. But the point remains that industrial towns that have undergone this transformation succesfully now have higher employment than they did before.
Actually, labour costs are not a major factor in Apple products. Most of it is components and profit. The reason for manufacturing in China is that Foxconn can put fifty thousand workers on a new line tomorrow - which is exactly what happened when Steve Jobs decided the iPhone had to have a glass screen a few weeks before launch. No American factory could come close to the capacity required to make that switch in such a short timeframe.
Knowledge workers have massive multiplicative effects - meaning one knowledge worker typically creates a support base of several other workers - everything from tech support to delivery drivers. Manufacturing jobs don't do that.
Otherwise, install net-nanny and move on. And you're a fool for taking this brain-dead project this far.
Because total disarmament is currently impossible because there is insufficient trust. Successful implementation of an arms reduction agreement brings the point where you have that trust closer.
Pah. Pentiums came out fifteen years ago.
Well, this is only talking about accidental death - not heart disease, etc. Accident rates are a fraction of biological cause rates except at young ages (10 or so), so the resulting life expectancy is much more sensitive.
My gf kept telling me to try something new. So I tried her sister.
It doesn't burn calories, it's an appetite suppressant. Off the top of my head, I would say second order effect. And although smoking is big in China, it's still only on the order of 30-40%.
It's hugely sensitive to local circumstances, because non-biological causes of death are low compared to other causes, and vary far more by country (lots more gunshot wounds in the US than the UK, for example). My figures are UK based, though I don't have a handy citation or know what the basis was, though I'd guess insured lives.
The lifespan of all humans everywhere won't increase by 25 years in a blink. It will take many, many years just until such a therapy becomes available to rich-world citizens, never mind the population as a whole. We'll have time to make the cultural adaptions necessary.
However, the point that is often missed here is that the calorific restriction involved is intolerable - it would leave you weak, lethargic, and with no quality of life. I can't remember the exact details, but it's of the order of 1000 calories a day for a man, less than half the standard recommended amount for weight maintainance.
Todays fun actuarial fact: if you strip out all biological causes of death, your life expectancy is about six thousand years (with, obviously, large variance).
Strategic purchases are almost inevitably wrong, but they still need to be made or when the next real shooting war starts we'll have no defence manufacturing capability at all. Depends on your definition of useful, of course. Much as I lament the loss of regiments, new infantry batallions can be spun up in months. New carrier? Don't plan to fight a war before the 2020s.
In fairness, Phil Hammond is by no means a desktop warrior. He's managed to rein in the MOD budget, something I didn't think I'd ever see. And he certainly doesn't come across as someone who enjoys playing soldiers.