Except running a RAID on SSDs is stupid because it breaks just about everything and gives no performance improvements. Most RAID controllers don't pass TRIM properly.
If it happens to enough customers that actually honoring the warranty would damage their overall profits, then they're a high risk target for a class action lawsuit. If it doesn't happen to enough customers to meaningfully affect their overall profits, then they've got little to gain by not honoring warranties.
This additionally has nothing to do with free speech, either. Libel is libel -- free speech doesn't allow you to spread outright lies about someone or some entity. You can argue whether it's libel or not in court; but once it's established it's libel, Google should be just as liable as the source for merely linking to it.
Actually it's not libel. Trkulja and his expensive buddies just leveraged their mafia protection money out of Google.
Or good fantasy or scifi. Browsing the local book store is the worst way to find anything worth reading. Try to find The Gap Cycle, or Brandon Sanderson's works. The local Barnes & Noble constantly has books in the middle of a series, like book 3 or 4 of a series of 6, but not book 1.
An individual plan costs $450/mo for a single person. Family plans are higher because they inevitably involve neonatal care or whatever it's called when you have a baby and rack up the bills, so if you've got a woman and she's on your healthcare it's like "oh holy shit this person will eventually knock that bitch up and then we have to pay alimony to support his kid QUICK JACK UP THE COST!" They have to pay those claims somehow.
But lower prices are not why people shop local. They shop local because of in-person browsing, personalized services, and loyalty to their community, probably in that order.
People have this odd conception that shopping local somehow is better for the economy, too. It's probably better for the local economy, in the same way that high interest rates on over-valued houses are better for banks: concentrates money in a certain place, in a way that's actually harmful economically but is good for a certain specific entity at the cost of everyone else.
Parable of the broken window again and again and again. In this case, you could buy a book for $19 locally; or you could buy that book for $8 on Amazon Kindle, and spend $11 at your local farmer's market. In the former case, "your community" is richer--where "your community" is a book store. In the latter case, *you* are richer: you have a book *and* you have food, for the same money as just the book; on top of that, the farmer's market has some of your money, instead of the book store having it.
If the book store goes away but the local farmer's market grows, tough beans for the book store. You don't need a local book store--everybody is getting their books cheaper on Amazon and it's the same shit. What you do need is fresh, locally-grown produce that hasn't been picked unripe, gassed, shipped across the entire country, etc. How do I know this? Because nobody's buying books locally and everyone's buying local produce, that's why the farmer's market got bigger and the book store went bankrupt! If you'd all just buy books locally and cut back on the farmer's market spending, a bunch of people would be sitting around reading their expensive books going, "Gee, I wish we could afford good quality fruits and vegetables and fresh meats from a local farmer's market, but we don't have one and I spend all my money on books..."
Looks ridiculous on a small scale, but when you build it out this is exactly what happens. Arbitrarily subsidizing businesses has a cost.
Fallacy of total body. His YouTube argument focused on the distribution of content and of the proportions of stored content, and on its behavioral impacts in a market related to that content. Revenue generation impacts are irrelevant; his argument was logically consistent and appropriate.
And your black and white view is, as others said, beside the point. The real enabler is technology in the form of the Internet and extremely capacious and fast storage media. Bashing Megaupload is just shooting the messenger.
You're one of those gun control folks that think the real problem is guns, not murderers, aren't you?
that the nanny state is successfully protecting people doesn't make it right and good. People are still deprived of their park. What if we implemented a curfew and arrested anyone on the streets between 11pm and 5am?
Guns were very, very popular in the US because the whole country fought for its independence early on. Britain's military had guns, but civilly they fought with fists; they sent their military here, and our frontiersmen civilian population acted as independent militia. They all needed guns to hunt food here in the wild, uncharted lands; Britain's well-established civilization allowed for more farming and food distribution by donkey-cart. Our guns got us our freedom, and our guns became part of our freedom; in Britain, guns are just guns, nothing a person really needed before.
There's not a huge demand for guns in Britain in any case.
Moreover even if it helped some sellers it may not have helped others (blockbuster owners). So one cannot point to a net increase in sales as being beninficial to all.
Even more interesting is that this is largely irrelevant. If more people have access to movies (by piracy) AND it can be shown that piracy has a net effect of increasing total sales of movies, wealth is increased on both ends (total wealth of the consumers and of the producers--wealth isn't limited to money, but rather is the access to goods, including goods such as time and happiness and freedom, as well as food and DVDs and flying cars). In such a scenario, the economy is more efficient and effective; those who are losing (i.e. the movie rental places, the 8 track tape producers, etc) are simply no longer necessary in the market and their continued existence by means of arbitrary rule enforcement is waste and is harmful.
Economics is a big complex number game that people try to bend into a big emotional game (for political means) or a money pump (i.e. rent-seeking bullshit intended to drive more money to an entity--a business or person--by harming others, for example regulations that don't really impact large businesses but make starting a small competitor prohibitively expensive, or activities that forcibly increase revenue such as raising rent when more affluent people start moving into the area--the expense of being a landlord may even decrease, but there's simply more money and so that money is taken by the landlord since people are rich and will now pay it). Every point is counterpointed, every counterpoint opens up a huge philosophical and mathematical discussion, and many strategies are interesting.
"We find that the shutdown had a negative, yet insignificant effect on box office revenues." What was flawed?
An insignificant effect is too small to attribute to anything but random chance. That's the technical definition of insignificant. If you flip four coins and three of them come up heads, the bias towards heads is insignificant to show that the coins are unfair.
Yeah, so does "poisonous," how does that help? I eat poisonous things all the time and it doesn't bother me. Salmonella gives me a stomach ache sometimes though.
Nuclear war is already threatening humanity. The most useful thing we could invent right now is the clean-pumped fusion bomb, a remote activated nuclear bomb with a tritium payload detonated by concentrated laser fire. A clean-pumped fusion bomb would allow us to set off a nuclear explosion without generating ionizing radiation or radioactive fall-out. With this, we could build a shaped-charge nuclear blast drive, finally completing Project Orion, without the dangers of negative environmental impact from nuclear fall-out.
Imagine the UN if we started researching newer types of nuclear bombs. Imagine how quickly Iran and North Korea would equate them to conventional weaponry once they were accepted, and claim they have a right to the technology because it is, essentially, just a big clean explosive like dynamite. Small nukes are just conventional bombs if they're not radioactive.
No, nuclear war has eliminated the potential for effective distant manned space travel. It has ensured that interplanetary travel will remain prohibitively expensive.
Oh I didn't read the article, my bad. The summary makes it sound like the earth is suddenly 4 degrees warmer TODAY, which doesn't magically happen, and if you missed the earth slowly getting warmer and you wake up and it's 4 degrees warmer and your job and life is tracking the earth's temperature you're a moron.
What I don't get is why we can't see this shit coming. We make all these predictions about what's going to happen, and then one day, BAM! "Oh shit! While we weren't looking, the earth got hotter, like our models said!" It's not ever a gradual report. There's like, "The earth is getting warmer" "The average temperature is increasing" "Global average temperature is in an up-trend" "TODAY, studies found that the earth is TWO DEGREES HOTTER!" "Earth still getting hotter" "Earth hotter still" "Global warming" "Manbearpig" "STUDY SHOWS EARTH 4 DEGREES HOTTER WOW!!!"
There's no "wow" here. The earth should only be marginally hotter today than it was yesterday; you shouldn't wake up and be like, "WHOA! I didn't know the earth was that hot!" You're a scientist, you've been tracking how hot the earth is for the past 30 years, how did it get several degrees hotter than you thought it was while you weren't looking?
LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation.
This very article claims Hostess will leave 18,500 employees unemployed BY CEASING ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS. Wikipedia gives the following pieces of information:
In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[16] Gregory F. Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored by January 1 (or earlier) of the following year.
That's $3.5 million, although it was cut for no real reason except as an act of good faith--like cutting your arm to show you have red blood, it doesn't benefit anyone but it hurts you but people like to see they have power over you and so the infliction of injury is good policy, even if the cold fiscal facts of it are that it's stupid and pointless. Additionally, the 300% number you pulled seems to be a bit bigger than 80%.
Your arguments implicitly dispute the cold, hard financial situation; or you put more stock into sticking it to the man than doing anything useful. What exactly is the use of the policy of reducing executive salaries in the case of Hostess?
Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO.
No, the ultimate responsibility of the CEO is to the shareholders. If the company is unsalvagable, they will often hire a CEO specifically experienced in dropping a company. That's why there are top-dollar CEOs that keep getting hired into businesses that look iffy--BIG businesses--and then 6 months later the business is filing for bankruptcy while the CEO is getting a pat on the back and a golden parachute. That was the deal: make this thing come down without everyone involved losing their ass.
Obviously the CEOs didn't feel their salaries would make the damnedest dent in returning the company to profitability; they lowered them as a negotiation bargaining chip--and they're a year ahead on 80% additional savings, though I'm hesitant to give executives (or anyone) that much foresight that they'd plan to pad their savings just so they can drop their salary as a good-faith negotiation tactic--but that's about it. They argued for reductions in healthcare coverage, pensions, and union salaries that would dwarf their executive salaries--this is both everyone's ultimatum that the company is falling apart AND a strong effort to reorganize. Too bad the Hostess brand is still all about things that people don't want today.
The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.
The CEO is a shareholder in many cases. Many of the upper executives are on the board. In either case,
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung manufactures all of Micron's stuff...
Except running a RAID on SSDs is stupid because it breaks just about everything and gives no performance improvements. Most RAID controllers don't pass TRIM properly.
If it happens to enough customers that actually honoring the warranty would damage their overall profits, then they're a high risk target for a class action lawsuit. If it doesn't happen to enough customers to meaningfully affect their overall profits, then they've got little to gain by not honoring warranties.
Google should do this. People would back the fuck off.
This additionally has nothing to do with free speech, either. Libel is libel -- free speech doesn't allow you to spread outright lies about someone or some entity. You can argue whether it's libel or not in court; but once it's established it's libel, Google should be just as liable as the source for merely linking to it.
Actually it's not libel. Trkulja and his expensive buddies just leveraged their mafia protection money out of Google.
Where you spend your money has a multiplier effect on the community you are spending in.
The "multiplier" concept is a cornerstone of economic arguments from people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Or good fantasy or scifi. Browsing the local book store is the worst way to find anything worth reading. Try to find The Gap Cycle, or Brandon Sanderson's works. The local Barnes & Noble constantly has books in the middle of a series, like book 3 or 4 of a series of 6, but not book 1.
An individual plan costs $450/mo for a single person. Family plans are higher because they inevitably involve neonatal care or whatever it's called when you have a baby and rack up the bills, so if you've got a woman and she's on your healthcare it's like "oh holy shit this person will eventually knock that bitch up and then we have to pay alimony to support his kid QUICK JACK UP THE COST!" They have to pay those claims somehow.
Oh right, because a widget that's $19.99+tax is now just as expensive as that same widget for $29.99+tax.
But lower prices are not why people shop local. They shop local because of in-person browsing, personalized services, and loyalty to their community, probably in that order.
People have this odd conception that shopping local somehow is better for the economy, too. It's probably better for the local economy, in the same way that high interest rates on over-valued houses are better for banks: concentrates money in a certain place, in a way that's actually harmful economically but is good for a certain specific entity at the cost of everyone else.
Parable of the broken window again and again and again. In this case, you could buy a book for $19 locally; or you could buy that book for $8 on Amazon Kindle, and spend $11 at your local farmer's market. In the former case, "your community" is richer--where "your community" is a book store. In the latter case, *you* are richer: you have a book *and* you have food, for the same money as just the book; on top of that, the farmer's market has some of your money, instead of the book store having it.
If the book store goes away but the local farmer's market grows, tough beans for the book store. You don't need a local book store--everybody is getting their books cheaper on Amazon and it's the same shit. What you do need is fresh, locally-grown produce that hasn't been picked unripe, gassed, shipped across the entire country, etc. How do I know this? Because nobody's buying books locally and everyone's buying local produce, that's why the farmer's market got bigger and the book store went bankrupt! If you'd all just buy books locally and cut back on the farmer's market spending, a bunch of people would be sitting around reading their expensive books going, "Gee, I wish we could afford good quality fruits and vegetables and fresh meats from a local farmer's market, but we don't have one and I spend all my money on books..."
Looks ridiculous on a small scale, but when you build it out this is exactly what happens. Arbitrarily subsidizing businesses has a cost.
Fallacy of total body. His YouTube argument focused on the distribution of content and of the proportions of stored content, and on its behavioral impacts in a market related to that content. Revenue generation impacts are irrelevant; his argument was logically consistent and appropriate.
And your black and white view is, as others said, beside the point. The real enabler is technology in the form of the Internet and extremely capacious and fast storage media. Bashing Megaupload is just shooting the messenger.
You're one of those gun control folks that think the real problem is guns, not murderers, aren't you?
that the nanny state is successfully protecting people doesn't make it right and good. People are still deprived of their park. What if we implemented a curfew and arrested anyone on the streets between 11pm and 5am?
Guns were very, very popular in the US because the whole country fought for its independence early on. Britain's military had guns, but civilly they fought with fists; they sent their military here, and our frontiersmen civilian population acted as independent militia. They all needed guns to hunt food here in the wild, uncharted lands; Britain's well-established civilization allowed for more farming and food distribution by donkey-cart. Our guns got us our freedom, and our guns became part of our freedom; in Britain, guns are just guns, nothing a person really needed before.
There's not a huge demand for guns in Britain in any case.
Moreover even if it helped some sellers it may not have helped others (blockbuster owners). So one cannot point to a net increase in sales as being beninficial to all.
Even more interesting is that this is largely irrelevant. If more people have access to movies (by piracy) AND it can be shown that piracy has a net effect of increasing total sales of movies, wealth is increased on both ends (total wealth of the consumers and of the producers--wealth isn't limited to money, but rather is the access to goods, including goods such as time and happiness and freedom, as well as food and DVDs and flying cars). In such a scenario, the economy is more efficient and effective; those who are losing (i.e. the movie rental places, the 8 track tape producers, etc) are simply no longer necessary in the market and their continued existence by means of arbitrary rule enforcement is waste and is harmful.
Economics is a big complex number game that people try to bend into a big emotional game (for political means) or a money pump (i.e. rent-seeking bullshit intended to drive more money to an entity--a business or person--by harming others, for example regulations that don't really impact large businesses but make starting a small competitor prohibitively expensive, or activities that forcibly increase revenue such as raising rent when more affluent people start moving into the area--the expense of being a landlord may even decrease, but there's simply more money and so that money is taken by the landlord since people are rich and will now pay it). Every point is counterpointed, every counterpoint opens up a huge philosophical and mathematical discussion, and many strategies are interesting.
"We find that the shutdown had a negative, yet insignificant effect on box office revenues." What was flawed?
An insignificant effect is too small to attribute to anything but random chance. That's the technical definition of insignificant. If you flip four coins and three of them come up heads, the bias towards heads is insignificant to show that the coins are unfair.
Yeah, so does "poisonous," how does that help? I eat poisonous things all the time and it doesn't bother me. Salmonella gives me a stomach ache sometimes though.
what does zone 3 biotoxin mean?
Nuclear war is already threatening humanity. The most useful thing we could invent right now is the clean-pumped fusion bomb, a remote activated nuclear bomb with a tritium payload detonated by concentrated laser fire. A clean-pumped fusion bomb would allow us to set off a nuclear explosion without generating ionizing radiation or radioactive fall-out. With this, we could build a shaped-charge nuclear blast drive, finally completing Project Orion, without the dangers of negative environmental impact from nuclear fall-out.
Imagine the UN if we started researching newer types of nuclear bombs. Imagine how quickly Iran and North Korea would equate them to conventional weaponry once they were accepted, and claim they have a right to the technology because it is, essentially, just a big clean explosive like dynamite. Small nukes are just conventional bombs if they're not radioactive.
No, nuclear war has eliminated the potential for effective distant manned space travel. It has ensured that interplanetary travel will remain prohibitively expensive.
Maybe because scientists have actually been UNDERESTIMATING THE DAMAGE so people like you don't call them "alarmist".
So the scientists are manipulating the numbers and producing fake scientific data?
Seems like the scientists are manipulating the numbers and producing fake scientific data to me.
Oh I didn't read the article, my bad. The summary makes it sound like the earth is suddenly 4 degrees warmer TODAY, which doesn't magically happen, and if you missed the earth slowly getting warmer and you wake up and it's 4 degrees warmer and your job and life is tracking the earth's temperature you're a moron.
So the scientists are manipulating the numbers and producing fake scientific data? I don't trust them.
What's this 4 degrees C thing then and why is it suddenly relevant today?
What I don't get is why we can't see this shit coming. We make all these predictions about what's going to happen, and then one day, BAM! "Oh shit! While we weren't looking, the earth got hotter, like our models said!" It's not ever a gradual report. There's like, "The earth is getting warmer" "The average temperature is increasing" "Global average temperature is in an up-trend" "TODAY, studies found that the earth is TWO DEGREES HOTTER!" "Earth still getting hotter" "Earth hotter still" "Global warming" "Manbearpig" "STUDY SHOWS EARTH 4 DEGREES HOTTER WOW!!!"
There's no "wow" here. The earth should only be marginally hotter today than it was yesterday; you shouldn't wake up and be like, "WHOA! I didn't know the earth was that hot!" You're a scientist, you've been tracking how hot the earth is for the past 30 years, how did it get several degrees hotter than you thought it was while you weren't looking?
LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation.
This very article claims Hostess will leave 18,500 employees unemployed BY CEASING ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS. Wikipedia gives the following pieces of information:
In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[16] Gregory F. Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored by January 1 (or earlier) of the following year.
That's $3.5 million, although it was cut for no real reason except as an act of good faith--like cutting your arm to show you have red blood, it doesn't benefit anyone but it hurts you but people like to see they have power over you and so the infliction of injury is good policy, even if the cold fiscal facts of it are that it's stupid and pointless. Additionally, the 300% number you pulled seems to be a bit bigger than 80%.
Your arguments implicitly dispute the cold, hard financial situation; or you put more stock into sticking it to the man than doing anything useful. What exactly is the use of the policy of reducing executive salaries in the case of Hostess?
Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO.
No, the ultimate responsibility of the CEO is to the shareholders. If the company is unsalvagable, they will often hire a CEO specifically experienced in dropping a company. That's why there are top-dollar CEOs that keep getting hired into businesses that look iffy--BIG businesses--and then 6 months later the business is filing for bankruptcy while the CEO is getting a pat on the back and a golden parachute. That was the deal: make this thing come down without everyone involved losing their ass.
Obviously the CEOs didn't feel their salaries would make the damnedest dent in returning the company to profitability; they lowered them as a negotiation bargaining chip--and they're a year ahead on 80% additional savings, though I'm hesitant to give executives (or anyone) that much foresight that they'd plan to pad their savings just so they can drop their salary as a good-faith negotiation tactic--but that's about it. They argued for reductions in healthcare coverage, pensions, and union salaries that would dwarf their executive salaries--this is both everyone's ultimatum that the company is falling apart AND a strong effort to reorganize. Too bad the Hostess brand is still all about things that people don't want today.
The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.
The CEO is a shareholder in many cases. Many of the upper executives are on the board. In either case,