These machines are expensive in part because of the limit numbers produced. If there was more demand for the machines, then the companies producing them would be able to lower margins by taking advantage of mass production techniques.
"It takes freaking forever"
Time will always be a factor, but think about the time savings if suddenly hundreds of scientists were collaborating trying to see if a certain molecule would bond with the aids virus.
"funding"
Just because ideas are shared does not mean that the drugs produced will cost consumers no money. There will still be plenty of money to make off the actual sale of the product. After all, it is common knowledge how to make donuts, but lots of companies do it and make good money doing it.
Also consider another important aspect of drug research, the risk. Companies stand to lose a massive amount of money if something fails trials or turns out not to work well. If you have a lot more people working on something, you spread out the risk considerably.
As far as clinical trials go, the government can simply grant limited production rights to the company that puts up the cash to get something through trials. Once the money is made back with a certain % profit, the game is opened and they have to compete with everyone else. Except they will already have a huge branding advantage.
Really what you are talking about is 'supply and demand'. Offshoring is simply increasing the supply of IT workers, albeit at artificially low prices. This increases the competition for jobs back home, and puts downward pressure on wages.
People who are less skilled get squeezed out of the pool. It happens in every industry, why is IT sacred?
Obviously the near term cost completely sucks for those who get displaced, it was the same thing for all the blue collar guys who lost their manufacturing jobs, it was the same thing for all the textile workers who lost their jobs.
What do you propose? Enshrining Bob's job in law so that his wages cannot be reduced or his job lost?
Even without offshoring the same thing will happen eventually, as more and more people would be flocking to IT for the high salaries. Offshoring just makes it faster because of the injection of large numbers of skilled workers into the pool for much cheaper.
1) That is just another brand of protectionism, which according to Economists is unhealthly for the economy in the long run.
2) Companies would just find loopholes to exploit, and continue to seek ways to lower their costs. But then we would be stuck with a massive regulatory structure which would be a drain on the economy. All companies will do is just create affiliations and shadow companies incorporated in the bahamas to handle the work.
Market forces and competition are not perfect beasts. It is more likely that companies will pad the pockets of shareholders and execs with that money instead of passing it along to consumers.
Also if companies send a million jobs overseas then the economy has to absorb the loss of purchasing power for 1 million workers, which it can off course, but it negates some of those gains you are talking about.
The problem is the market when left to its own devices is not stable, it swings widly back and forth in response to events. Regulation introduces stability and predictibility at the cost of some efficiency.
We all know the value of a political statement from any organization, Christian, Muslim or somewhere in between--Zero. It is the actions of these organizations which more clearly signal their intent.
As far as the average Muslim goes, for starters they can make sure they are not funding Islamic 'Charities' that provide cash for terrorist organizations.
This is just going to force innovation away from the West and into the hands of emerging powers like China and India.
While the US and the EU commit ritual suicide via patent litigation and red-tape, the East will be making leaps and bounds in closing the innovation gap and capturing market share.
Outsourcing has already created the business channels and the beginnings of infrastructure to allow those nations to compete directly with the West. The only thing missing is innovation, and here it comes.
You are making a fundemental mistake in your logic by assuming that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be divided up around the world.
Maybe a better example would be:
The US manufactures M&Ms, and it costs 'you' the average consumer one dollar to purchase a bag of M&Ms.
Now move M&M Manufacture to china, where labor is dirt cheap, and it is easier to import chocolate. The production costs are much lower, thus allowing the price per bag of M&Ms to fall to 50 cents per bag.
You can now afford two bags of m&ms a month, or a bag of m&ms and something else. Your purchasing power is increased, therefore your relative wealth is increased.
Of course the only thing that will make prices fall is competition.
Uh, Google is already extremely profitable with its current text-based ad model. They have absolutely no reason to change their model, other than of course the IPO and short term investor greed.
The sad thing is they can't see the forest for the trees, googles speed, relevance and non-obtrusiveness are the reasons why people use the service. I predict a year from the IPO google will be just as bloated as Yahoo and be quickly eclipsed by other search services.
Would you feel the same way about the U.S. Mail? Should the post office be allowed to decide which mail gets delivered and which does not? Maybe the postman doesn't like your neighborhood, or your dog lurking in the yard?
The stupid thing about this article is you can buy all that crap and find all of those deals on the internet without having to wade through piles of spam.
So basically all this guy needs to do is google for aromatherapy or cheap newports and he will probably get better prices than he is getting now.
1) Not too many years ago I learned in a criminology class a few things about the patterns of drunk driving offenses. The professor had taken part in a get tough effort by some jurisdiction who was hard core about setting up traffic stops over a long period of time. The volume of drunk drivers did not decrease. Yet at the same time there were very few repeat offenders. The kept stopping different people over the course of the study.
2) At first glance the punishment described in the article seems only appropriate for people already convicted of DUIs. But given the professor's study, such an application would not reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads. If everyone had to have it it would.
3) Personally the social cost is way too high in my book. This kind of mass intrusion into your private life is something we need to avoid at all costs. It is a slippery slope
I have this argument with my clients all the time. Many of them do not trust open source. They say, 'It is unsupported! We can't run production on unsupported software!'
My argument is that it is no different from internally developed application. None of the code I write is 'supported' any more than the open source code out there. If something breaks they have to pay me to fix it. If something breaks with some open source code, they still have to pay me to fix it.
Also, the advantage of open source is that even if the author's slipped something 'nefarious' into the code, you have a chance to see it. What do you do when someone slips spyware into a proprietary application you use?
Think about the flip side of this guy's situation. Now all the companies that need to buy tools and dies can get what they need for cheaper, making it easier for them to compete and reduce costs to the end consumer.
This exact same thing happened recently with the steel tarif fiasco. US steel companies wanted the tariff, but all the industries that rely on steel here were hurting because of it.
The overall economic situation will always be better with free trade. Unfortunately it does dramatically effect those who get out competed.
The most important issue to work out is government regulation. If I can't compete because my government is preventing me due to environmental laws, then we have a problem and should enforcing punitive measures on those countries that will not regulate.
Ask yourself, what is really the expectation of the lawmakers in this arena? Do they really want to further criminalize a crime? Why not just pass a law that tightens the penalty for on-line fraud? What if your motivation was to strengthen the government's ability to regulate the internet? How would you go about it.
First you pass an innocuous looking law, that touches on an area you would like to restrict, but only appears to effect the 'fringe' criminal behavior.
Now said law could come in two flavors:
1) DCMA style: So broad that suddenly you have an all purpose club with which to beat the snot out of people's anonymity. And control who is allowed to have a presence on the web.
2) Anesthetic: The first of many laws, nibbling away at your freedoms one bite at a time. The are painless, but cumulative. The end result is that you suddenly have a whole framework of regulation you did not even notice being built.
Scientists at NASA have decided to keep the aging Hubble Telescope around for a little while longer. In a joint marketing effort with 'Booble', the telescope will be turned around to face the earth and used in the serious business of finding more content for the upstart pr0n search engine.
One NASA Scientist has been quoted saying, "Before this opportunity we searched through space for heavenly bodies. Is it not HIGH time we search for heavenly bodies at home?"
Slashdot Mirror
These machines are expensive in part because of the limit numbers produced. If there was more demand for the machines, then the companies producing them would be able to lower margins by taking advantage of mass production techniques.
"It takes freaking forever"
Time will always be a factor, but think about the time savings if suddenly hundreds of scientists were collaborating trying to see if a certain molecule would bond with the aids virus.
"funding"
Just because ideas are shared does not mean that the drugs produced will cost consumers no money. There will still be plenty of money to make off the actual sale of the product. After all, it is common knowledge how to make donuts, but lots of companies do it and make good money doing it.
Also consider another important aspect of drug research, the risk. Companies stand to lose a massive amount of money if something fails trials or turns out not to work well. If you have a lot more people working on something, you spread out the risk considerably.
As far as clinical trials go, the government can simply grant limited production rights to the company that puts up the cash to get something through trials. Once the money is made back with a certain % profit, the game is opened and they have to compete with everyone else. Except they will already have a huge branding advantage.
People who are less skilled get squeezed out of the pool. It happens in every industry, why is IT sacred?
Obviously the near term cost completely sucks for those who get displaced, it was the same thing for all the blue collar guys who lost their manufacturing jobs, it was the same thing for all the textile workers who lost their jobs.
What do you propose? Enshrining Bob's job in law so that his wages cannot be reduced or his job lost?
Even without offshoring the same thing will happen eventually, as more and more people would be flocking to IT for the high salaries. Offshoring just makes it faster because of the injection of large numbers of skilled workers into the pool for much cheaper.
2) Companies would just find loopholes to exploit, and continue to seek ways to lower their costs. But then we would be stuck with a massive regulatory structure which would be a drain on the economy. All companies will do is just create affiliations and shadow companies incorporated in the bahamas to handle the work.
Also if companies send a million jobs overseas then the economy has to absorb the loss of purchasing power for 1 million workers, which it can off course, but it negates some of those gains you are talking about.
The problem is the market when left to its own devices is not stable, it swings widly back and forth in response to events. Regulation introduces stability and predictibility at the cost of some efficiency.
Uh, Downs syndrome is not something you develop after being born, it is a genetic defect.
Downs FAQ
As far as the average Muslim goes, for starters they can make sure they are not funding Islamic 'Charities' that provide cash for terrorist organizations.
I have enough trouble finding information about CAML tags, let alone how to please my girlfriend.
"sperm samples winging their way to NYT"
Good Lord! What kind of sperm do you freaks have? My sperm SWIM thank you very much.Take heart, being diagnosed with Schizophrenia is considered 'industry experience' for SCO upper management. Positions open today!
Nano-yogurt would do us no good until someone invents the nano-spoon.
This is just going to force innovation away from the West and into the hands of emerging powers like China and India.
While the US and the EU commit ritual suicide via patent litigation and red-tape, the East will be making leaps and bounds in closing the innovation gap and capturing market share.
Outsourcing has already created the business channels and the beginnings of infrastructure to allow those nations to compete directly with the West. The only thing missing is innovation, and here it comes.
You are making a fundemental mistake in your logic by assuming that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be divided up around the world. Maybe a better example would be: The US manufactures M&Ms, and it costs 'you' the average consumer one dollar to purchase a bag of M&Ms. Now move M&M Manufacture to china, where labor is dirt cheap, and it is easier to import chocolate. The production costs are much lower, thus allowing the price per bag of M&Ms to fall to 50 cents per bag. You can now afford two bags of m&ms a month, or a bag of m&ms and something else. Your purchasing power is increased, therefore your relative wealth is increased. Of course the only thing that will make prices fall is competition.
Uh, Google is already extremely profitable with its current text-based ad model. They have absolutely no reason to change their model, other than of course the IPO and short term investor greed.
The sad thing is they can't see the forest for the trees, googles speed, relevance and non-obtrusiveness are the reasons why people use the service. I predict a year from the IPO google will be just as bloated as Yahoo and be quickly eclipsed by other search services.
He spent a lot of time in class AIMing to other people, and generally not paying attention.
Also a couple kids at the school managed to download massive amounts of Porn onto their laptops.
Would you feel the same way about the U.S. Mail? Should the post office be allowed to decide which mail gets delivered and which does not? Maybe the postman doesn't like your neighborhood, or your dog lurking in the yard?
Hell I feel sorry for anyone who is 'playing' with a vibrator in one of those towns! 'Suddenly I had a burning sensation from my loins'
The stupid thing about this article is you can buy all that crap and find all of those deals on the internet without having to wade through piles of spam.
So basically all this guy needs to do is google for aromatherapy or cheap newports and he will probably get better prices than he is getting now.
And the German economy has what % unemployment? I bet it is a lot higher than the US.
1) Not too many years ago I learned in a criminology class a few things about the patterns of drunk driving offenses. The professor had taken part in a get tough effort by some jurisdiction who was hard core about setting up traffic stops over a long period of time. The volume of drunk drivers did not decrease. Yet at the same time there were very few repeat offenders. The kept stopping different people over the course of the study.
2) At first glance the punishment described in the article seems only appropriate for people already convicted of DUIs. But given the professor's study, such an application would not reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads. If everyone had to have it it would.
3) Personally the social cost is way too high in my book. This kind of mass intrusion into your private life is something we need to avoid at all costs. It is a slippery slope
Anyone else flash back to "The Secret of Nimh?"
I have this argument with my clients all the time. Many of them do not trust open source. They say, 'It is unsupported! We can't run production on unsupported software!'
My argument is that it is no different from internally developed application. None of the code I write is 'supported' any more than the open source code out there. If something breaks they have to pay me to fix it. If something breaks with some open source code, they still have to pay me to fix it.
Also, the advantage of open source is that even if the author's slipped something 'nefarious' into the code, you have a chance to see it. What do you do when someone slips spyware into a proprietary application you use?
Think about the flip side of this guy's situation. Now all the companies that need to buy tools and dies can get what they need for cheaper, making it easier for them to compete and reduce costs to the end consumer.
This exact same thing happened recently with the steel tarif fiasco. US steel companies wanted the tariff, but all the industries that rely on steel here were hurting because of it.
The overall economic situation will always be better with free trade. Unfortunately it does dramatically effect those who get out competed.
The most important issue to work out is government regulation. If I can't compete because my government is preventing me due to environmental laws, then we have a problem and should enforcing punitive measures on those countries that will not regulate.
Ask yourself, what is really the expectation of the lawmakers in this arena? Do they really want to further criminalize a crime? Why not just pass a law that tightens the penalty for on-line fraud? What if your motivation was to strengthen the government's ability to regulate the internet? How would you go about it. First you pass an innocuous looking law, that touches on an area you would like to restrict, but only appears to effect the 'fringe' criminal behavior. Now said law could come in two flavors: 1) DCMA style: So broad that suddenly you have an all purpose club with which to beat the snot out of people's anonymity. And control who is allowed to have a presence on the web. 2) Anesthetic: The first of many laws, nibbling away at your freedoms one bite at a time. The are painless, but cumulative. The end result is that you suddenly have a whole framework of regulation you did not even notice being built.
Scientists at NASA have decided to keep the aging Hubble Telescope around for a little while longer. In a joint marketing effort with 'Booble', the telescope will be turned around to face the earth and used in the serious business of finding more content for the upstart pr0n search engine. One NASA Scientist has been quoted saying, "Before this opportunity we searched through space for heavenly bodies. Is it not HIGH time we search for heavenly bodies at home?"
Quick, adapt this thing to underpants and we can do away with 'shrinkage'!