With tables I can see how things are laid out on the page from the HTML itself, clearly and succinctly.
LOL, well it is sort of a design goal of CSS to make it so that you have no idea how HTML will render by looking only at the HTML - separation of content and layout. Something tells me that your application won't benefit from this:)
I think that was more like a luxury item that suddenly went on sale. Kind of like if Prada decided that they were no longer going to manufacture purses and sold them for 25% of their original price.
In any event, the key point to take away is that people aren't rational followers of the theoretical demand curve... many factors go into a purchase, and any time you start talking about luxury and entertainment, all talk of theory seems to get dicey. I have no confidence that variable pricing would have the predicted effect.
My reasoning? If only I were so smart! The reverse demand slope of wine is an old, well-worn theory not of my making. I know there is a hot low-end wine category right now, but that doesn't change people's brains.
Even if you take exception to my wine example, the point still stands that many times people avoid more inexpensive products because they believe them to be inferior.
Why does it cost the same to park a big vehicle as to park a small vehicle?
It is more expensive to park an SUV or minivan in many manned garages. It's the unattended ones with the gates where they use uniform prices for what should be an obvious reason.
Why isn't it cheaper to park at 6 AM and more expensive to park at 9 AM or noon?
Most city parking garages seem to have different pricing at different times of day.
I don't think so. I think it is because, to the theater owners, supply is more or less infinite and demand is fixed. When they stop filling the theaters with one movie, they rotate to the next. Of course I am simplifying... there is definitely a shortage of blockbusters, not an infinite supply... but they can pretty much account for average attendance and price accordingly.
Variable pricing would piss off people and mark certain movies as failures. I'm pretty sure it would work like wine - people would avoid the cheap ones.
Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state.
Both of your examples are red herrings, IMHO. Any pragmatic person would not look at issues so narrowly. You won't advance medicine by experimenting on unwilling participants if you are also considering the effect this would have on personal liberties - and you won't implement a police state because you know from studying history that the power of the state will be abused.
I'm fairly confident that if it was impossible to keep credit card numbers a secret, people would come up with a new system. Perhaps we would all be better off and more secure if people could freely list credit card numbers.
No it isn't - the economy went "tits up" because the housing bubble popped in the US. It rose and popped for many reasons, but mostly greed. Greed of large companies looking for easy and safe investments that paid well, but not doing the kind of due diligence that they should. Greed of mortgage brokers who falsified documents and behaved in a predatory way. And greed of individuals who threw out common sense and latched on to these deals that were too good to be true. There was also incompetence and reliance on bad models.
But I very much doubt that there was a large number of people that were doing due diligence for 6 months out and ignoring anything beyond that - they just weren't doing it at all, or they were using flawed numbers that would have been just as flawed whether they looked at 1 year or 10 years.
Anyway, if I give you the opportunity to make a good living for 6 months, you either take it or don't - but calling it stupid or shortsighted doesn't change the fact that someone else will seize the opportunity.
And if the contract between the carrier and the customer includes security updates for the handset for the life of the service commitment,
Naturally, but that's a pretty big if. I don't think mine includes any such provision. Certainly if yours does, then you do have a contractual right to security updates.
Ideally, at least as long as the contract that was bundled with the phone, which in the case of the United States cellular market is typically two years.
Are you confusing the carrier's role with the manufacturer's role? Why does Samsung's obligation change just because a carrier subsidizes the phone?
Automakers and makers of infant care products routinely issue recalls when a safety problem is discovered with their products.
Yes, but for how long? It's worth noting that car seats come with an expiration date, for instance. Cribs built even just 5 years ago would not allowed for sale today.
Not to mention that as a society we take personal safety to life and limb much more seriously than computer crime. We have a bureaucracy in place set up to make sure that car makers, aircraft makers, train operators, elevator manufacturers, baby product makers, etc. are all tightly regulated and they are specifically required by law to make retroactive safety improvements.
If you want this same government oversight for phones, be my guest and push for it - but there is not currently any right to a free service contract included with any electronic toy you purchase. For what it's worth, I don't want such oversight.
You interpret the amendment meant to protect against an authoritarian government depriving you of property to mean that you get a service contract free with a phone purchase??? That's even more amazing to me than simply feeling entitled to such a contract.
They should be required to provide you with a procedure to unlock any protections you want to unlock so that you have full access to the hardware.
I disagree. A company is under no obligation other than to sell you the device as is, so long as the condition of the device is not falsely represented. If it was locked-down when you bought it, you have absolutely no reason to expect them to open it up in the future - nor should they be required to. If you want an open device, then buy an open device.
Why shouldn't a phone tied to a 2-year service contract get security updates to fix known vulnerabilities in the operating system for the entire contract period?
I don't know why it "shouldn't", but I'm pretty sure mine "doesn't".
I think people have unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement. Ford isn't under any obligation to bring your older car up to current safety standards, and any device with a non-flashable ROM is not updated ever. Just because a device has some capability does not mean a manufacturer is on the hook to use that capability unless they made some commitment. If Samsung wants to sell phones and then never upgrade them, that is their right - though me personally... I'd spend a few extra dollars for a phone that does promise more support.
Slashdot Mirror
It amused me to see street sellers in NYC advertising pashmina shawls as '50% silk!' as if that was a good thing.
Amazing, since otherwise they seem like the kind of people you can trust.
Yeah, I'll get right on that.
Did you people never have childhoods?
With tables I can see how things are laid out on the page from the HTML itself, clearly and succinctly.
LOL, well it is sort of a design goal of CSS to make it so that you have no idea how HTML will render by looking only at the HTML - separation of content and layout. Something tells me that your application won't benefit from this :)
No harm using straight HTML and tables for you...
It's standards compliant as long as you get it into standards mode.
I think that was more like a luxury item that suddenly went on sale. Kind of like if Prada decided that they were no longer going to manufacture purses and sold them for 25% of their original price.
In any event, the key point to take away is that people aren't rational followers of the theoretical demand curve... many factors go into a purchase, and any time you start talking about luxury and entertainment, all talk of theory seems to get dicey. I have no confidence that variable pricing would have the predicted effect.
If you are just trying to get drunk, and you pick wine... you are doing it wrong :)
I see a serious flaw in your reasoning.
My reasoning? If only I were so smart! The reverse demand slope of wine is an old, well-worn theory not of my making. I know there is a hot low-end wine category right now, but that doesn't change people's brains.
Even if you take exception to my wine example, the point still stands that many times people avoid more inexpensive products because they believe them to be inferior.
Why does it cost the same to park a big vehicle as to park a small vehicle?
It is more expensive to park an SUV or minivan in many manned garages. It's the unattended ones with the gates where they use uniform prices for what should be an obvious reason.
Why isn't it cheaper to park at 6 AM and more expensive to park at 9 AM or noon?
Most city parking garages seem to have different pricing at different times of day.
Economy of scale.
I don't think so. I think it is because, to the theater owners, supply is more or less infinite and demand is fixed. When they stop filling the theaters with one movie, they rotate to the next. Of course I am simplifying... there is definitely a shortage of blockbusters, not an infinite supply... but they can pretty much account for average attendance and price accordingly.
Variable pricing would piss off people and mark certain movies as failures. I'm pretty sure it would work like wine - people would avoid the cheap ones.
Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state.
Both of your examples are red herrings, IMHO. Any pragmatic person would not look at issues so narrowly. You won't advance medicine by experimenting on unwilling participants if you are also considering the effect this would have on personal liberties - and you won't implement a police state because you know from studying history that the power of the state will be abused.
Let me know your credit card numbers.
I'm fairly confident that if it was impossible to keep credit card numbers a secret, people would come up with a new system. Perhaps we would all be better off and more secure if people could freely list credit card numbers.
Actually the article is complete bullshit because Android is not no. 2, it is the most popular mobile OS.
This data includes tablets, where iOS holds a near-monopoly. It also includes iPods (the Touch).
Sure, they might. But unless your government does, you have no right to it - and there is certainly no natural right to software updates :)
No it isn't - the economy went "tits up" because the housing bubble popped in the US. It rose and popped for many reasons, but mostly greed. Greed of large companies looking for easy and safe investments that paid well, but not doing the kind of due diligence that they should. Greed of mortgage brokers who falsified documents and behaved in a predatory way. And greed of individuals who threw out common sense and latched on to these deals that were too good to be true. There was also incompetence and reliance on bad models.
But I very much doubt that there was a large number of people that were doing due diligence for 6 months out and ignoring anything beyond that - they just weren't doing it at all, or they were using flawed numbers that would have been just as flawed whether they looked at 1 year or 10 years.
Anyway, if I give you the opportunity to make a good living for 6 months, you either take it or don't - but calling it stupid or shortsighted doesn't change the fact that someone else will seize the opportunity.
And if the contract between the carrier and the customer includes security updates for the handset for the life of the service commitment,
Naturally, but that's a pretty big if. I don't think mine includes any such provision. Certainly if yours does, then you do have a contractual right to security updates.
Doing it just because I can "recoup my investment" short term is stupid.
How is it stupid? You make more money than you started with. Provided the margin is sufficient, it is a smart investment.
Like I want to build my software around an API that could disappear in 6 months to a year.
You'd be foolish not to, if you could recoup the investment in less than 6 months to a year with a decent return.
Programmers seem to routinely toss away their entire codebase from time to time anyway.
You don't get to be his equal and discuss the universe in smoking jackets. You get to be his bitch!
You've never had a boss that you learned things from?
The amendment isn't about the right to own property.
Most of it is - only the "persons" part doesn't concern property - the other 3 enumerated items are all property protections.
You said it yourself - this is about protection from the law, not protection from some random Russian hacker.
So? Your contract is between some carrier and yourself - I'd bet Samsung is nowhere on the contract.
Ideally, at least as long as the contract that was bundled with the phone, which in the case of the United States cellular market is typically two years.
Are you confusing the carrier's role with the manufacturer's role? Why does Samsung's obligation change just because a carrier subsidizes the phone?
Automakers and makers of infant care products routinely issue recalls when a safety problem is discovered with their products.
Yes, but for how long? It's worth noting that car seats come with an expiration date, for instance. Cribs built even just 5 years ago would not allowed for sale today.
Not to mention that as a society we take personal safety to life and limb much more seriously than computer crime. We have a bureaucracy in place set up to make sure that car makers, aircraft makers, train operators, elevator manufacturers, baby product makers, etc. are all tightly regulated and they are specifically required by law to make retroactive safety improvements.
If you want this same government oversight for phones, be my guest and push for it - but there is not currently any right to a free service contract included with any electronic toy you purchase. For what it's worth, I don't want such oversight.
You interpret the amendment meant to protect against an authoritarian government depriving you of property to mean that you get a service contract free with a phone purchase??? That's even more amazing to me than simply feeling entitled to such a contract.
They should be required to provide you with a procedure to unlock any protections you want to unlock so that you have full access to the hardware.
I disagree. A company is under no obligation other than to sell you the device as is, so long as the condition of the device is not falsely represented. If it was locked-down when you bought it, you have absolutely no reason to expect them to open it up in the future - nor should they be required to. If you want an open device, then buy an open device.
Why shouldn't a phone tied to a 2-year service contract get security updates to fix known vulnerabilities in the operating system for the entire contract period?
I don't know why it "shouldn't", but I'm pretty sure mine "doesn't".
I think people have unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement. Ford isn't under any obligation to bring your older car up to current safety standards, and any device with a non-flashable ROM is not updated ever. Just because a device has some capability does not mean a manufacturer is on the hook to use that capability unless they made some commitment. If Samsung wants to sell phones and then never upgrade them, that is their right - though me personally... I'd spend a few extra dollars for a phone that does promise more support.