Many cards have chips. I have yet to see a card reader in actual use that reads anything but the stripe, though....
I suspect this has something to do with the way the equipment is billed - less secure, stripe-only device must be cheaper for business to "rent", for some reason.
Anyway, for a CC user, who cares - don't pay charges that you didn't make. Let the banks take the risk and realize they need better equipement. It's not like a debit card where you have to beg the bank to give you your money back for the charges you don't make....
we wouldn't have to "budget for inflation" if we weren't creating it in the first place....
The Fed's inflation target is 2%. Not their "upper limit" target. That's the point that they would like it to be. Ever year, someone is extracting 2% of the value of all the savings in the country, on purpose.
Also, 2% of $3 trillion is $60 billion, not $500 million..
They are cheaper than hardcover list price at B&N. They are only slightly cheaper than hardcover actual price people pay at B&N, and only sometimes cheaper than paperback.
Early on, the pricing was a bit better, but it was never great. Also, they seem to be consistently more expensive than Amazon....
Why one or the other? May people read novels AND textbooks. They don't have to be the same device, it's not like you need a second mortgage to get a 6 or 7" eBook reader to compliment a large format, color e-reader (although the color ones are taking their sweet time to come to market...) for textbooks.
In fact, I'd venture to guess that the set of people who read novels intersects more strongly with the set of people who read textbooks than either one does with the people who don't read the other one.
Well, that's the problem. $1.99 may still be too high for something you're only going to watch once. How much would you pay to see sharknado? or <generic house costume show>?
If you divide your cable bill by the number of shows your household watches, you would likely find that the average price per show is less than $1.99. Therefore, only stuff that is better than average should cost that much. Most stuff should cost much less.
I would be very interested to know what the advertising returns per viewer are. I suspect that they're far less than $1.99 per single viewing of a one hour episode of anything.
3/5's for the purpose of determining representation in congress. In other words, the slave states were getting voting power based not only on the number of voting citizens, but also on the number of non-free people.
3/5's is profoundly unfair, but the fair value isn't unity, it's zero - slaves are automatically disenfranchised by definition. Slave states shouldn't have been rewarded for their inhumanity.
People can post about you, and it will be added to the things that Facebook knows about you. You don't have to be the one that does the posting. I believe it has even been reported that you don't even need to have started an account in the first place - facebook will make a "shadow account" to keep track of what it knows about you...
Keep in mind that the very powerful have an interest in the existence of welfare (it presumably helps to prevent reigns of terror from upsetting the social order), but also have the interest and power to make sure that it is paid for by those less powerful. Including those who are so unpowerful that they actually need the benefits. Perhaps even people who wouldn't need the benefits if they didn't have to pay for them...
Someone fishing probably did notice. They'd be providing habitats that are attractive to fish, after all. They probably just didn't tell anyone so they could keep the best fishing spots for themselves.
That is exactly why I have a Netflix subscription and no current plans to get a Hulu subscription.
Sure, Hulu has more current shows (sometimes.... Seems to be getting less selection lately, though, and of course they don't have the Netflix originals), but they don't seem to be offering anything for the subscription price beyond, "if you've got a mobile device that can't do flash, you can use our app on it to watch our stuff and unskipable ads."
They are not stupid. They know what you care about, and how to make you think they care about those things, too. But what they actually care about may be orthogonal or even antagonistic to what you care about.
The will use what you care about to advance their own agenda, which more often than not seems to be the transfer of liberty and property from you to them.
This is what we get for electing smooth-talking sociopaths as lawmakers.
While you can't know if any given result is a false positive on its own, you can eventually determine the false positive rate using the results of follow up (or non-follow up outcomes), and use that to inform the decision about whether to take additional steps.
Further, I somewhat doubt that it's a simple yes/no on the false positives. Surely things like imaging tests will have varying degrees of confidence in the results depending on how well resolved the detected structures are, or even the shape or location of said structures.
If a doctor sees something that has a 90% chance of being a false positive, should the follow up test or procedure be performed? I propose that it should depend on the nature of the follow up. Perhaps a second test might be in order (assuming that a repeated test is capable of improving the confidence or disproving the hit) if the tests are cheap and low risk and other measures are not.
This is an optimization problem, and more information shouldn't lead to less favorable results unless we're handling that information poorly.
And that we can do something to change it, and that we should do something to change it.
The effects of the predicted changes and the effects of the measures necessary to contain or mitigate them need to be evaluated against each other. I haven't heard any real concrete steps for containment other than "shut down pretty much all economic activity, right now, just in case."
But the solution to "acting on the data is burdensome" isn't to collect less data. It's to be smarter about how you act on it.
In the case of a screening test, sure, you want to set the frequency of tests to the optimal one for "health problems successfully detected and mitigated" vs. "health risk increase from the test itself".
"mamograms increase cancer risk" is a valid argument for controlling the number of mammogram tests. "Mamogram test results must be acted upon" is not, because you have the choice at each step along the way as to whether or not to continue to the next step. Each step should be evaluated on its own, based on the available information.
If the followup action has its own risks, they should be factored in to the decision process for that step, not the preceding step.
Yeah the medical issue is a problem with matching test results to actions taken. The argument that we should do less tests, because the tests might find something and then we must take action always seemed a little specious to me. Sure, you might end up doing extra procedures based on the results of the test, but that just means that we need to do one of:
suck up the cost of the extra procedures (if there's little to no health risk and the cost is reasonable)
improve the accuracy of the tests themselves
research or use follow up tests to filter out issues that are benign
Change the threshold for which liability is incurred if results are not followed up on to one which makes sense and results in the best overall outcome.
If the problem is that lawyers make it difficult to gather information because they will require action where none should be taken, the solution isn't to cut back on information. It's to cut back on lawyers.
Is the tracking JS really slower, or is it more that the bottleneck is that the page is designed to wait for the tracking stuff to run, and the ad servers are under-provisioned, too far away (and/or not using a cdn), and all the tracking stuff isn't bundled, so many requests need to come back (and some of the tracking stuff has its own 3rd (4th?) party dependencies...) before you actually get to run it....
And.. wasn't the original point that you could "allocate" memory for huge, sparse objects, but only really use the portion you actually need, with the buffer of paging in case you go over a bit, to keep things from crashing?
I'm fairly certain that it was never intended to allow an application that needs 500MB, to run in 50MB of RAM....
There's really no such thing as price gouging, so the independent stores you liked as well as the ones you didn't, weren't doing it. If they charged a lot for books, they were charging what they thought the market could bear, and if people bought them at that price, they were right. That's how you run a business.
But.. the thing you liked about the independent bookstores might not have been something that they could monetize - namely, the fact that the proprietor at least, and usually the employees, were at least as "into books" as you were, so they carried things that you enjoyed, and could make recommendations to you that you trusted, and maybe would converse with you about the books you liked as well.
So, when stores like amazon came in that could sell the obscure books at much lower prices, people (yourself and the other customers of the small book store you like so much) buy their books from amazon, being rational purchasers, and you lose the things you liked about the indy store but were only indirectly paying for.
Some part of me likes to buy on principle to prevent one or a few players gaining so much market dominance (rather than, as you say, fixing it once there is a demonstrable problem), but at the same time it's probably also silly to think that's effectively accomplishing anything
Me, too. That's why I own a Nook instead of a Kindle, and why I'll probably be purchasing a Kindle soon.
they can give you an experience that looks like Walmart, but in reality is more like Jimmy's Used Cars.
How do you haggle with Amazon?
Re:New technology makes old technology obsolete.
on
The Price of Amazon
·
· Score: 1
And now best buy is closing stores left and right, because people are wise to that, and it's not really that great of an upsell anyway - an extra $18 of profit on a $2k television they sold? Does that really make the space for the television worth it?
Slashdot Mirror
Does the number show up on the reader, or on the card itself? If it's the reader, you're still not protected from skimming....
Many cards have chips. I have yet to see a card reader in actual use that reads anything but the stripe, though....
I suspect this has something to do with the way the equipment is billed - less secure, stripe-only device must be cheaper for business to "rent", for some reason.
Anyway, for a CC user, who cares - don't pay charges that you didn't make. Let the banks take the risk and realize they need better equipement. It's not like a debit card where you have to beg the bank to give you your money back for the charges you don't make....
we wouldn't have to "budget for inflation" if we weren't creating it in the first place....
The Fed's inflation target is 2%. Not their "upper limit" target. That's the point that they would like it to be. Ever year, someone is extracting 2% of the value of all the savings in the country, on purpose.
Also, 2% of $3 trillion is $60 billion, not $500 million..
They are cheaper than hardcover list price at B&N. They are only slightly cheaper than hardcover actual price people pay at B&N, and only sometimes cheaper than paperback.
Early on, the pricing was a bit better, but it was never great. Also, they seem to be consistently more expensive than Amazon....
Why one or the other? May people read novels AND textbooks. They don't have to be the same device, it's not like you need a second mortgage to get a 6 or 7" eBook reader to compliment a large format, color e-reader (although the color ones are taking their sweet time to come to market...) for textbooks.
In fact, I'd venture to guess that the set of people who read novels intersects more strongly with the set of people who read textbooks than either one does with the people who don't read the other one.
Well, that's the problem. $1.99 may still be too high for something you're only going to watch once. How much would you pay to see sharknado? or <generic house costume show>?
If you divide your cable bill by the number of shows your household watches, you would likely find that the average price per show is less than $1.99. Therefore, only stuff that is better than average should cost that much. Most stuff should cost much less.
I would be very interested to know what the advertising returns per viewer are. I suspect that they're far less than $1.99 per single viewing of a one hour episode of anything.
Does it actually taste great, or does it taste great in the same way that a "veggie burger" tastes great...
3/5's for the purpose of determining representation in congress. In other words, the slave states were getting voting power based not only on the number of voting citizens, but also on the number of non-free people.
3/5's is profoundly unfair, but the fair value isn't unity, it's zero - slaves are automatically disenfranchised by definition. Slave states shouldn't have been rewarded for their inhumanity.
Do you need time to play it? It uses the progress quest mechanic for player skills, doesn't it?
Point 2 ignores the larger issue.
People can post about you, and it will be added to the things that Facebook knows about you. You don't have to be the one that does the posting. I believe it has even been reported that you don't even need to have started an account in the first place - facebook will make a "shadow account" to keep track of what it knows about you...
You don't think that breaks things a bit?
Keep in mind that the very powerful have an interest in the existence of welfare (it presumably helps to prevent reigns of terror from upsetting the social order), but also have the interest and power to make sure that it is paid for by those less powerful. Including those who are so unpowerful that they actually need the benefits. Perhaps even people who wouldn't need the benefits if they didn't have to pay for them...
Someone fishing probably did notice. They'd be providing habitats that are attractive to fish, after all. They probably just didn't tell anyone so they could keep the best fishing spots for themselves.
That is exactly why I have a Netflix subscription and no current plans to get a Hulu subscription.
Sure, Hulu has more current shows (sometimes.... Seems to be getting less selection lately, though, and of course they don't have the Netflix originals), but they don't seem to be offering anything for the subscription price beyond, "if you've got a mobile device that can't do flash, you can use our app on it to watch our stuff and unskipable ads."
They are not stupid. They know what you care about, and how to make you think they care about those things, too. But what they actually care about may be orthogonal or even antagonistic to what you care about.
The will use what you care about to advance their own agenda, which more often than not seems to be the transfer of liberty and property from you to them.
This is what we get for electing smooth-talking sociopaths as lawmakers.
While you can't know if any given result is a false positive on its own, you can eventually determine the false positive rate using the results of follow up (or non-follow up outcomes), and use that to inform the decision about whether to take additional steps.
Further, I somewhat doubt that it's a simple yes/no on the false positives. Surely things like imaging tests will have varying degrees of confidence in the results depending on how well resolved the detected structures are, or even the shape or location of said structures.
If a doctor sees something that has a 90% chance of being a false positive, should the follow up test or procedure be performed? I propose that it should depend on the nature of the follow up. Perhaps a second test might be in order (assuming that a repeated test is capable of improving the confidence or disproving the hit) if the tests are cheap and low risk and other measures are not.
This is an optimization problem, and more information shouldn't lead to less favorable results unless we're handling that information poorly.
Well, it would have to be, since Android and iOS collectively are over 90% of the market, and the market is now several years mature...
And that we can do something to change it, and that we should do something to change it.
The effects of the predicted changes and the effects of the measures necessary to contain or mitigate them need to be evaluated against each other. I haven't heard any real concrete steps for containment other than "shut down pretty much all economic activity, right now, just in case."
But the solution to "acting on the data is burdensome" isn't to collect less data. It's to be smarter about how you act on it.
In the case of a screening test, sure, you want to set the frequency of tests to the optimal one for "health problems successfully detected and mitigated" vs. "health risk increase from the test itself".
"mamograms increase cancer risk" is a valid argument for controlling the number of mammogram tests. "Mamogram test results must be acted upon" is not, because you have the choice at each step along the way as to whether or not to continue to the next step. Each step should be evaluated on its own, based on the available information.
If the followup action has its own risks, they should be factored in to the decision process for that step, not the preceding step.
Ignorance for the sake of ignorance isn't a plan.
Yeah the medical issue is a problem with matching test results to actions taken. The argument that we should do less tests, because the tests might find something and then we must take action always seemed a little specious to me. Sure, you might end up doing extra procedures based on the results of the test, but that just means that we need to do one of:
If the problem is that lawyers make it difficult to gather information because they will require action where none should be taken, the solution isn't to cut back on information. It's to cut back on lawyers.
Is the tracking JS really slower, or is it more that the bottleneck is that the page is designed to wait for the tracking stuff to run, and the ad servers are under-provisioned, too far away (and/or not using a cdn), and all the tracking stuff isn't bundled, so many requests need to come back (and some of the tracking stuff has its own 3rd (4th?) party dependencies...) before you actually get to run it....
And.. wasn't the original point that you could "allocate" memory for huge, sparse objects, but only really use the portion you actually need, with the buffer of paging in case you go over a bit, to keep things from crashing?
I'm fairly certain that it was never intended to allow an application that needs 500MB, to run in 50MB of RAM....
There's really no such thing as price gouging, so the independent stores you liked as well as the ones you didn't, weren't doing it. If they charged a lot for books, they were charging what they thought the market could bear, and if people bought them at that price, they were right. That's how you run a business.
But.. the thing you liked about the independent bookstores might not have been something that they could monetize - namely, the fact that the proprietor at least, and usually the employees, were at least as "into books" as you were, so they carried things that you enjoyed, and could make recommendations to you that you trusted, and maybe would converse with you about the books you liked as well.
So, when stores like amazon came in that could sell the obscure books at much lower prices, people (yourself and the other customers of the small book store you like so much) buy their books from amazon, being rational purchasers, and you lose the things you liked about the indy store but were only indirectly paying for.
Some part of me likes to buy on principle to prevent one or a few players gaining so much market dominance (rather than, as you say, fixing it once there is a demonstrable problem), but at the same time it's probably also silly to think that's effectively accomplishing anything
Me, too. That's why I own a Nook instead of a Kindle, and why I'll probably be purchasing a Kindle soon.
they can give you an experience that looks like Walmart, but in reality is more like Jimmy's Used Cars.
How do you haggle with Amazon?
And now best buy is closing stores left and right, because people are wise to that, and it's not really that great of an upsell anyway - an extra $18 of profit on a $2k television they sold? Does that really make the space for the television worth it?
We're not a republic any more as of the 17th amendment. Not quite a democracy, though.