Are you claiming that this has happened, or that it will happen? Not that I dont believe you, but I had not heard about it happening ( past ), and I am not clear on how it plays out ( future ).
Manufacturer co-ops? Do tell, I love a good story.
I would be a bit afraid of them rubber stamping everything. There is no adversarial relationship, and there is no lack of bias. How do you keep them from lying?
It is true that that happens now, but that is because the manufacturers ( at least as I see it ) have too large a hand in the testing ( and therefore a bias towards success ).
On Insurance, currently, can an insurer sue the manufacturer if they have to pay out on something the manufacturer put out that was unsafe? WOuld they be able to under your scheme? Would these policies continue to be inexpensive under your scheme, or would the prices go up, due to additional capital risk ( a vendor would likely have much less deep a set of pockets to collect damages from... )
And in autos and bicycles, manufacturers let the dealers fix broken products ( and how! they sort insist on it... ) I hear claims that auto's are not all that high a margin, I have more experience in bicycles, which I know are not high margin.
You are correct, it is *very* complicated. Which is why I would tend towards being a bit conservative in changing the system.
I would think that having the middle man hold the liability of the product would tend toward delaying awareness at the manufacturer's level of product. It would also shield the manufacturer, possibly making them think less of the idea of having to produce a safe product, as any effects would be delayed and buffered by the vendors.
Also, history take a while to build, and can be destroyed quickly. I.E. in the initial stages there would be no history between B and C, therefore no information to base decisions on. Further, assume some history between b and c. C can then misuse that, make a few dollars trading on that history without following it up quite so well.
Biggest question that comes to mind is why would you limit suits to the vendor, and not the manufacturer?
The manufacturer has the information to know ( more ) about safe / unsafe than a vendor does ( unless each vendor stands up some kind of testing lab ( read:expensive ) ).
Take cars for example, should each dealership be crash testing automobiles in order to certify them as safe? I have a hard time seeing that work out well.
I jumped to a conclusion when you said "looked like the B-2", as the XB-35/XB-49 and B-2 were all Northrup designs, and looked fairly similiar ( had the same wingspan, IIRC ).
Canard means the up/down control surfaces are in front of the main lifting surfaces, opposite the "usual" configuration. The Wright brothers airplanes were of this configuration.
But that was not what I was talking about with swept forward.
this is what I was talking about ( I hope the picture is worth a thousand words, the angle is not the best, but I think it shows it well enough, if not google ju 287 ).
my understanding was that they were not all that hard to control, but that the CEP ( circular error probablity ) was too high for bombing. There are some questions about why the airplane was cancelled. Some say conspiracy, some say that was just the way it was.
Slashdot Mirror
Curious.
Are you claiming that this has happened, or that it
will happen? Not that I dont believe you, but I
had not heard about it happening ( past ), and I am
not clear on how it plays out ( future ).
And those bell wires will be T1 and above wires that are paid for.
Time was, people would replace the Jaguar engines
with Chevy V-8's. Reliability.
Not that I am saying that OSX and WinXP share that
relationship, mind you.
Explain those persons who make a living photographing celebrities
when they do not wish to be photographed.
Yes, as long as your run only on the ion engine.
Yes, except they will accidently put a space before or behind each email address they check, then go ahead and email your (anonymous) kids anyway.
Opps! We are *so* sorry, wont happen again!
( for the next 15 milliseconds, anyway... )
Course, a list is not the way to go.
EMail porn to a kid? Huge fine, prison sentence, etc, etc.
Too much overhead? Too bad.
See, here is where you went wrong.
You were rational.
What you said makes sense, and is probably the
right way to do things.
See? Now you stop that, OK?
Manufacturer co-ops? Do tell, I love a good story.
... )
I would be a bit afraid of them rubber stamping everything.
There is no adversarial relationship, and there is no lack of bias.
How do you keep them from lying?
It is true that that happens now, but that is because the manufacturers
( at least as I see it ) have too large a hand in the testing
( and therefore a bias towards success ).
On Insurance, currently, can an insurer sue the manufacturer if
they have to pay out on something the manufacturer put out that
was unsafe? WOuld they be able to under your scheme? Would
these policies continue to be inexpensive under your scheme, or
would the prices go up, due to additional capital risk ( a vendor
would likely have much less deep a set of pockets to collect
damages from
And in autos and bicycles, manufacturers let the dealers fix broken
products ( and how! they sort insist on it... ) I hear claims that
auto's are not all that high a margin, I have more experience in
bicycles, which I know are not high margin.
You are correct, it is *very* complicated. Which is why I would
tend towards being a bit conservative in changing the system.
I would think that having the middle man hold the liability of
the product would tend toward delaying awareness at the manufacturer's
level of product. It would also shield the manufacturer, possibly
making them think less of the idea of having to produce a safe
product, as any effects would be delayed and buffered by the vendors.
Also, history take a while to build, and can be destroyed quickly.
I.E. in the initial stages there would be no history between B
and C, therefore no information to base decisions on. Further,
assume some history between b and c. C can then misuse that, make a
few dollars trading on that history without following it up quite
so well.
Just a few rambling thoughts.
Dont install the spark plug!
If the pressure gets high enough, you have
the first diesel computer!
Biggest question that comes to mind is why would you limit
suits to the vendor, and not the manufacturer?
The manufacturer has the information to know ( more ) about
safe / unsafe than a vendor does ( unless each vendor stands
up some kind of testing lab ( read:expensive ) ).
Take cars for example, should each dealership be crash testing
automobiles in order to certify them as safe? I have a hard
time seeing that work out well.
More later.
In what way would you overhaul tort laws?
As I understand it, one possible source for the raw materials for
biodiesel is waste vegitible oil from fast food type operations.
I dont know if there is enough waste oil available to make a lot
of difference.
All that said, you have a good point that the larger picture needs
to be looked at..
Excepting that "finding" that 6.0c upgrade would most likely be illegal, as Microsoft is
not selling it any more, so you cant buy it.
Good job convincing him/her/it that he/she/it is wrong.
And a great job of just proving him/her/it wrong for the
rest of us.
Totally insightfull deconstruction there.
I promise I'll find a cure for cancer. Just let
me rob banks until I have enough money.
The ends justify the means?
Biodiesel != Ethanol
In a turbine electric scenario, you would never run it at idle.
You would run it in it's optimal range till the battery
was topped, then shut it down.
Leastways, that is how I would do it.
Yes, I had noticed how the democrats have total and complete control
of the house, senate, and presidency and are using it.
LNG Explosion in the 1940's
He/She/it could still use toes or nose to poke that key.
Better revise this, quick.
Oh, and rewrite in Haskell, so there are no side effects.
Apologies for my presumption.
I jumped to a conclusion when you said "looked
like the B-2", as the XB-35/XB-49 and B-2 were
all Northrup designs, and looked fairly similiar
( had the same wingspan, IIRC ).
Canard means the up/down control surfaces are in front
of the main lifting surfaces, opposite the "usual"
configuration. The Wright brothers airplanes were
of this configuration.
But that was not what I was talking about with swept forward.
this
is what I was talking about ( I hope the picture is worth
a thousand words, the angle is not the best, but I think
it shows it well enough, if not google ju 287 ).
You are thinking of the XB-35/XB-49 flying wing.
My understanding was that they were not hard to control, but that the CEP was too high for bombing.
Swept forward wings where first used on a Luftwaffe JU-287 back in the 40's.
ref here
So did the /XB-49.
XB-35
XB-49
my understanding was that they were not all that hard to control, but that the CEP ( circular error probablity ) was too high for bombing. There are some questions about why the airplane
was cancelled. Some say conspiracy, some say that was just the way it was.
Mice are *soo* 21st century.
You cant talk to your computers?