What really bugs me is that many report on the same crap. To take "Balloon Boy" as an example, how many news outlets covered the story? All of them? There is no reason to bombard the public the same story from every channel and angle. There has GOT to be a ton of news to report out there. Balloon Boy should have taken a good 3 minutes out of my day on maybe 2 channels. That's it, then MOVE on till the story changes!
These guys have all become profit hungry corporations (not necessary a bad thing) that want to milk as many eyeballs out of every single piece of news as possible instead of actually increasing news content to be consumed.
To augment skgrey's posts, which I totally agree on. Fox, for this example, should have had a one or two sentence section on this "small" bit of news. If they tracked down Susan Boyle or Sharon Osbourne for a comment, that is due diligence. Anything beyond that falls into making news, entertaining the public, or being the news, not actually reporting it.
All these channels should really either get out of the news reporting business and show basically opinion/gossip/commentary/soap, OR provide news hour segments. And this is important, they really need to try hard to create clear, obvious distinctions between the news reporting section and the public entertainment section.
To pick on Fox again, I think the "Fox News" channel is a complete misnomer and does a huge disservice to the public. If it was the "Fox" channel, no problem, but once you attach News to it, the ballgame should change. You shouldn't have commentary, opinion, and discussion as the presentation to the public. I can understand reporting on the commentary, opinion, and discussion already done by the _parties_ involved, but you should NOT be generating that content, and in some cases having others reporting on it.
Ask for a SAS70, it will answer many questions, and at a minimum give you a very good starting point. After reading that, you might want to fill in the gaps where your own risk conclusions differ from the auditors via a visit. Additionally, I would look at the backup solutions they have, and if they have an offsite solution, then do a quick visit over there too. Also, find out how long it would take to come back online from offsite backups if Murphy strikes. I think something that a lot of people don't consider is expansion. See how much of their capacity they are already using up, how fast they can grow with your demands, and how easy/hard it would be to move out.
-- Ex-Auditor.
A better solution is to dope these things into male/female enhancement drugs and market it to the US. That way, the Chinese and Japanese economies will double their export revenues, completely recover, the world economy will go back to the way things were, someone will actually make profit, net spam traffic will triple, and we will continue to have the biggest compensating for something or other....
You maybe able to recover damages from libel or slander, but you can't actually stop them. And if it is a truthful rumor/gossip, then you can't do anything once it is out.
No, I don't agree. We don't confiscate people's drivers licenses _before_ we prove that they ignore red lights. We do that afterwards. And even then, we give them an ID card as the license has more uses than just for driving. The way it should be done is on the defendant side, where we punish him with no internet contact for the next x months. If he breaks it, he gets penalties, not the provider he contacted.
It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.
To hit home closer than the other posters, liquids less than 4oz must be put in a zip lock bag else they have to be checked in. I don't think "more-educated" means what you think it means or the satire has gone over all our heads.
Seriously, I don't partake in much illegal stuff (I actually have legal copies of XP, and I primarily watch hulu or ask a friend to record something for me). I think a significant part of the consumer base has gotten to the frustrated stage I am trying to covey below and can't see any other reasonable way to fight back. How do you reasonable argue against something that is immoral and illegal... you can't. Even if you have different orientations on morality and legalities. So here goes:
Anonymous Downloader: I don't give a damn about what you define as legal. I don't give a damn about what you define as a right.
I am sick and tired of: 1) being treated as a criminal before I do anything wrong. 2) having to pay far more than what I feel something is worth. 3) having to pay more than someone else for the same thing just cause of where I live or how much I make. 4) having the system limit my choices instead of giving me better ones. 5) having the system, that is supposed to serve me, and the odds set against me. 6) being treated like an idiot with a fat wallet. 7) having to jump through hoops and pseudo contracts just to buy something. 8) being told I have/own something but... not really.
Screw the system and all the players in it. I got some power and not only am I going to wield it to bring about my sense of justice and make me whole, but I will, so help me god, dispense some good old revenge... its gotten cold enough!
I remember those times. It wasn't ad free, but premium cables' benefit was almost no ads. Today, the actual "content" seems to have been reduced quite a bit. The time wasted is up, with the value add down, is it any wonder that the consumer is looking at alternatives. We used to call milking the crowd in running the "A-Team" in the afternoon and a rerun late night but today, that term doesn't do any justice.
1) The obvious is the reruns. God, there are so many; nuff said on that.
2) These days, most ads seem to be about OTHER shows on the same channel. Do people really need to be told 3-4 times over that "A new Grey's Anatomy is coming up next"? I am sure that viewership not only knows that, but already figured out how to set up the DVR/Tivo, and whom/where to write death-threats to in case of a rumored canceling.
3) Why do many shows do a recap of the previous show for more than a minute? People who missed the show probably won't get much from a recap and people who didn't, don't need it!!
4) Why do many shows do a "preview" before the start of the show and before every commercial break? And then a small introduction after the ads? Finally a "Next week on..." at ending the show? Skip all this crap and put up the credits longer or something or maybe even more ads!
5) Most channels are just copy cats. Some idiot gets a retarded idea (survivor, real life,...) and because the brain dead public [we think] eats it up (as there is nothing else to watch), ever bloody network copies it with their own version. NO one wants to take a risk with new ideas, cause they are too scared! The public is made even dumber by being bombarded by the same drivel on all 100 channels.
6) Have the seasons gotten shorter? And I am not talking about just the writers strike. There seem to be so few episodes aired for so many shows. Actors seem to take longer vacations than teachers! Hell, many of them don't even have paid actors!
All in all, there just seems to be so much "wasted" air time through out the day that you would think that the providers would either use it to increase the value-add content or put up more ads. TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring. Our society has gone from offering the next greatest new thing to limiting what's on the shelf so that people are forced to settle for something as its better than nothing.
If you are going to get down to pure Marketing, then the first question is "Who is the customer?" In most OSS cases, it is the developer(s), and thus most marketing to/for them is already done. Everyone else is a user, and users aren't important, just customers are (textbooks are the classic example). This is the key difference between "free as in beer" and commercial offerings. I think the former creates superior solutions, and the later provides to a greater audience.
The most successful (defined by users, not developers) projects are those that create secondary/sister entities whose whole purpose is to consider the regular PC user as the potential customer base AND most importantly have some say in the SDLC.
Currently China is basically borrowing from its own people to keep them happily employed. The borrowed money is lent to the US who in turn fuel the world economy, and keep the Chinese people employed. This continuous lending (basically based on faith in China and US) can't keep going. The carpenter can't keep doing free work for you on the basis that you will pay him in the future, just so he can keep employed. Eventually, his living and raw material expenses will catch up to him, and he will need you to make basic payments. And one day you won't be able to afford the interest plus expenses on the loans (current housing situation).
Eventually, there will be a sharp currency correction (ex: Russia). But here, the correction will be for the US dollar to drop, and Chinese yuan to go up. US exports will become cheap to the world and businesses will move back into the US. China will have reduced growth as the world can't afford their goods anymore. Unfortunately, most of their buying power is US currency based (all eggs in one basket)... which means their buying power drops too. China obviously doesn't want this, but can't do anything. If they diversify their buying power into other currencies, they accelerate the currency correction process.
Next up, socially and politically insensitive speech, porn, nude/violent/graphic images, low price merchants, and communication with unenlightened societies.
So many to choose from, it makes me dizzy just from thinking... oh, thinking!
I am using sigma in terms of meeting a quality specification. Based upon your definitions of "product," most things produced in mass quantities fall into a bell curve. In this case, we are talking about hardware. So, take the processor for hypothetical example: we want a processor that can be clocked at 2GHz and lasts for 4 years.
Say a properly setup manufacturing process will yield a product population meeting a specification of 1.8GHz to 2.2Ghz and lasts 3.8 to 4.2 years. I am pulling numbers, but 6 sigma says something like: out of a population of 1 million, there shouldn't be more than 3-4 that fall outside the defined specification. You are to continue to improve the entire process until our quality control tests show that the process has reached this reliability level.
A 1 sigma means roughly 2 out of every 3 products are messed up and do not meet your product specification. And 7 sigma I believe is 5-10 (?) out of a _billion_. Getting to 6 sigma is very difficult and very expensive, but 7 is even more expensive. What most companies do is try to get to 4, 5, or 6 sigma (depending on what the product is) and just fix the defects on the tail end when the consumer complains through warranties and such.
Back to our reliable hardware, I would like to think that Apple tests their hardware to a higher quality. What I mean is their hardware meets a more stringent specification test (3.9-4.1 years failure and 1.9-2.1 GHz). But this costs more, and thus they expect more. BUT, just because you tested something to be reliable to a lower specification, doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't meet a higher specification.
As a consumer, you might as well buy the less stringently tested product and take the good chance of having something that meets a higher test than pay the extra just for passing the more stringent test.
There is far far more to it, but that was the quick end. On a side note, I bet the processor manufacturing process is around 3-5 sigmas. I doubt they are anywhere close to a 6 sigma.
Its the same hardware, the same silicon, same chips and they all come from the same process. Just the source and and QC will be different.
Now, the Apple hardware might be 7 Sigma, and the rest of the guys are probably 6 Sigma. The difference is barely worth the price. But the difference is so small that you might as well buy the 6 Sigma and have a high chance of actually having a 7 Sigma or better on hand instead of paying extra just to guarantee yourself a 7 Sigma.
Especially console games. I used to be a minor game addict in the CS days and before and recently got back into gaming with a PS3 instead of a high end computer (for those of you looking at the same choices, this was a mistake. get a big screen and a high-end, upgradeable PC).
I must say, that games have gotten worse, and more expensive. With the 360 and PS3, all I have seen in gain is graphics (which don't compare to high-end PCs). Instead of a player having a bar that shows how tired he is or how shiny his skin has gotten from sweat, we have "Ohhh look we can see the camera flashes off a bead of sweat." Everything else has mostly stayed the same or gotten worse.
From a tech standpoint (engine perf, features, mod capability...), I think the curve has stayed about average.
BUT the PRICING... has gone up. Now, games cost $50-$80 on a console! Marketing seems to have done nothing but add to the end price. It says nothing about the actual game. You need to wait 3-6 months to see the resale prices which actually reflect the value of the game. By then the marketing has died off and the reviews are from real gamers who say more than "EA is a great company so this game is great."
All 5 of my multiplatform games have crashed one time or another. It is HORRIBLE for a console game that costs ~$60 to CRASH!!! A PC game crashing is understandable, but a console game? Game makers should be ashamed of themselves for some of the garbage that comes out. Quality control is obviously what they moved to marketing.
I would say primarily because most people who could afford the luxury of traveling via a car saw it as a major cost savings. Not to mention, many businesses that normally wanted their workers to go to client sites started making them work remotely in the home offices which are usually next to rail.
I have a few friends who have the availability of rail, but enjoy driving their cars to work. Some of them switched to rail when the prices went up, but some stayed with the car. One lives 10 minutes from a station, has free parking, but would still rather take the toll road and pay for parking and gas. The trip difference is 5 minutes, but he is willing and is easily able to afford the luxury of a car.
I am sure there were many that were in similar positions that had to shift their affordability as the car option's travel expenses inflated by a 100%. More still got out of their homes and had the flexibility to locate closer to transit.
I disagree with the grandparent but want to pick on your post. The American rail transit system is horrible except in some places such as the Northeast (New York to DC) and Chicago. And its still a joke compared to the rest of the world. Pretty much ever where else, for the average commuter, I would say the transit systems' faults are: time, effort, and flexibility in comparison to a car.
Take Atlanta for example, our county has a separate transit system. But luckily, I would say 50% of the businesses in Atlanta are connected directly to rail and around 20% more via a connecting bus. For me to just get into the Atlanta transit system, I need to walk a mile, and take two buses to link up with one of the rail stations. That takes me 1-2 hours (the buses come every 30 min). Via car, it will take me 1/2 to 1 hour, depending on traffic. This is how most cities with transit systems are. I could move to a better location and have the Atlanta transit system within 15 minutes, but my living expenses will shoot up by 40%. Even with the horrible gas prices, the car was a better deal.
And our national rail system (Amtrak) is a joke. It costs less money and about 10-30% of the time to buy an undiscounted Airline ticket for the same trip. Amtrak has been shown that it isn't economically feasible, yet we keep it around for sentimental reasons.
However, overall, our highway system is the best in the world. If you look at urban planning and population densities (or just look at a telecom's coverage map), you will see that our highway system is equivalent to most countries' rail systems. Where most countries use rail to transport freight, and then local trucking, we use a significant amount of just trucking across the country.
We are far too economically, commercially, and socially invested in our highways to ever make mass public transit an _efficient_ alternative. It would take too many people picking up their homes and moving into smaller plots or too many complex rail networks (see Philly) to feed spread out communities. People will just NOT be willing to do it in large enough numbers for it to be worth it.
My area (Smyrna and Marietta) is a perfect example. We have massive traffic jams that can double if not triple your vehicle commute into Atlanta. However, the area is rather willing to deal with the traffic than connect via a rail to the Atlanta system. Although there is already a freight rail system in place and a perfect abandoned location for a station, the people just don't want it. One, the traffic doesn't effect us as much (just the ppl from further north that drive past us) so why should we foot the bill. And two, all the parties between want a rail station which means too many stops, which means a slow rail commute, which means it isn't worth it. Plus, if we put it up, people will see that the parallel highway is faster anyway with less cars.
There are other reasons, but these two are pretty much it for every city in the US.
Sorry, I meant to put this disclaimer in, but forgot.
I used to work at Fannie Mae through a contracted company. We did Regulations work. On that, I would say FM has its problems, just like all companies do, but as per their management, they were probable somewhere between a government entity and private sector.
Also on the article, I think we are missing quite a bit of information. Knowing their systems and the external cash flow relationships, I think what is simply stated is actually quite impossible. I doubt it would have been as simple to make a virus, and get away with it.
Not being able to buy conforming loans is not an option for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The bank goes, "Here is a consolidated loan that meets the specs. Give me money." They have a little control over why types of loans and the ratio mix they currently accept, but much of the control over what is rejected is based on the conformity.
I remember that FM in the beginning stated that due to the newly realized risk (which the banks actually restated), they would have to cut down on the number of subprime and similar loans accepted by them to reduce the over all reassessed risk of its assets. But then the government stepped in and said no, as that would adversely effect the current messed up market. A kind of "Keep doing the wrong thing, maybe it will blow over."
There are many parties involved here well beyond FM. The largest blame goes to banks and the real estate industry which in some cases, fudged the load parameters to pass the conformity as they knew NO one else would buy that crappy $500k loan to the guy who made $30k a year. The bank always took the blunt of the liability (due to the load structure w/ FM), but they got greedy thinking the house comes with the liability, and if the house appreciates, they come out way on top. The house estimates weren't realistic as they were based on the past few years of performance and not actual market conditions (key factor: rate of increase in people's salaries). The agents enticed the home owners and sellers to buy or sell on this false home evaluation.
China and US are also to blame as the former kept buying the securities backed by the US. China owns the majority of US debt through the securities. Normally what would have happened is that a buyer of a loan will eventually go "You got enough debt, I don't think you can afford anymore." or "I hold enough of your debt, and cash, you got to give me a far better return." Instead, China just kept regulating their currency, keeping the dollar well over valued and kept buying securities. On the flip side, the seller of the loan, not being able to make payments would have either stopped asking for crack money (reduce riskly loans) or default on many of the loans. But instead we stole money from those who still had it, to keep the lender happy and STILL asked for a shit load of loans (FM tax bailout by government via infusion of cash).
Home owners and home builders are to blame. People don't like this idea but the majority of the owners who can't pay fall into two groups: those who were stupid, and those who saw it as a great short term investment. Both of these should have done more homework. The later deserve losing their assets and the bankruptcy. And stupidity doesn't mean you get a bailout. Instead of letting these folks fall into bankruptcy (remember, this is a viable option in the US), we want to protect them and keep them in their homes. What people don't realize is that bankruptcy gives you a clean slate, quickly resets assets to their correct values, and teaches a valuable lesson. But instead we would rather protect them from a lesson learned, keep the home price overinflated (the perpetuating cause of this mess) and require overinflated loans to continue the mess. So basically we let the idiots keep the homes, new owners (includes honest, responsible ppl) out in the cold (plus we take their money through taxes), and reward poor decisions (some of them being mistakes is irrelevant). Our HOPE is that dollar inflation (bailouts, government overspending not compensated via taxes, overvalued assets, and China floating their currency) will devalue the homes and increase salaries (not actual value) enough to make us whole again. The retarded home builders didn't think, "There are 10 skyscrapers being built in Atlanta, will there be a market for a 11th?" or "I am building 500 overpriced $500k homes here, are there that many buyers in this area?" Their business cycles are in terms of 3-5 years, yet they based their estimates AT most on the last 6?!!! If they looked further back, ins
When gas prices were about $3, my monthly gas bill was about $100 a month for my '97 Maxima. My dad's '97 Camery does even better. I think it is a better option for those big SUV owners to settle for a smaller car or SUV (my cousin's CR-V gets 27mpg). And rent the big Home Depot trucks/vans or Avis SUVs when needed.
As much as I want elec/hybrid (I don't consider hydrogen to be a valid alternative in place of elec), I don't think they are a viable alternative for some time. The tech or the market for what works (50 mile range) just isn't there. I have driven multiple hybrids, and the Prius is the only on that comes close. But it costs $5000 more than I feel its value is worth. I don't mind paying 10% more to feel better, but 25-30% more?
Losses are high, transportation is a pain, storage is a pain, and remember, we are talking about water that is 20C above absolute zero or just really, really cold.
Slashdot Mirror
What really bugs me is that many report on the same crap. To take "Balloon Boy" as an example, how many news outlets covered the story? All of them? There is no reason to bombard the public the same story from every channel and angle. There has GOT to be a ton of news to report out there. Balloon Boy should have taken a good 3 minutes out of my day on maybe 2 channels. That's it, then MOVE on till the story changes!
These guys have all become profit hungry corporations (not necessary a bad thing) that want to milk as many eyeballs out of every single piece of news as possible instead of actually increasing news content to be consumed.
To augment skgrey's posts, which I totally agree on. Fox, for this example, should have had a one or two sentence section on this "small" bit of news. If they tracked down Susan Boyle or Sharon Osbourne for a comment, that is due diligence. Anything beyond that falls into making news, entertaining the public, or being the news, not actually reporting it.
All these channels should really either get out of the news reporting business and show basically opinion/gossip/commentary/soap, OR provide news hour segments. And this is important, they really need to try hard to create clear, obvious distinctions between the news reporting section and the public entertainment section.
To pick on Fox again, I think the "Fox News" channel is a complete misnomer and does a huge disservice to the public. If it was the "Fox" channel, no problem, but once you attach News to it, the ballgame should change. You shouldn't have commentary, opinion, and discussion as the presentation to the public. I can understand reporting on the commentary, opinion, and discussion already done by the _parties_ involved, but you should NOT be generating that content, and in some cases having others reporting on it.
Ask for a SAS70, it will answer many questions, and at a minimum give you a very good starting point. After reading that, you might want to fill in the gaps where your own risk conclusions differ from the auditors via a visit. Additionally, I would look at the backup solutions they have, and if they have an offsite solution, then do a quick visit over there too. Also, find out how long it would take to come back online from offsite backups if Murphy strikes. I think something that a lot of people don't consider is expansion. See how much of their capacity they are already using up, how fast they can grow with your demands, and how easy/hard it would be to move out. -- Ex-Auditor.
A better solution is to dope these things into male/female enhancement drugs and market it to the US. That way, the Chinese and Japanese economies will double their export revenues, completely recover, the world economy will go back to the way things were, someone will actually make profit, net spam traffic will triple, and we will continue to have the biggest compensating for something or other ....
You maybe able to recover damages from libel or slander, but you can't actually stop them. And if it is a truthful rumor/gossip, then you can't do anything once it is out.
No, I don't agree. We don't confiscate people's drivers licenses _before_ we prove that they ignore red lights. We do that afterwards. And even then, we give them an ID card as the license has more uses than just for driving. The way it should be done is on the defendant side, where we punish him with no internet contact for the next x months. If he breaks it, he gets penalties, not the provider he contacted.
It'd never go over in the more-educated United States.
To hit home closer than the other posters, liquids less than 4oz must be put in a zip lock bag else they have to be checked in. I don't think "more-educated" means what you think it means or the satire has gone over all our heads.
We have X viewers in Y region, would you (McD) like us to apply your default ad or would you like a region/time specific ad to be displayed? Done.
So... you improve the overall service and start targeting ads based on location (selected or auto-determined).
Seriously, I don't partake in much illegal stuff (I actually have legal copies of XP, and I primarily watch hulu or ask a friend to record something for me). I think a significant part of the consumer base has gotten to the frustrated stage I am trying to covey below and can't see any other reasonable way to fight back. How do you reasonable argue against something that is immoral and illegal... you can't. Even if you have different orientations on morality and legalities. So here goes:
Anonymous Downloader:
I don't give a damn about what you define as legal. I don't give a damn about what you define as a right.
I am sick and tired of:
1) being treated as a criminal before I do anything wrong.
2) having to pay far more than what I feel something is worth.
3) having to pay more than someone else for the same thing just cause of where I live or how much I make.
4) having the system limit my choices instead of giving me better ones.
5) having the system, that is supposed to serve me, and the odds set against me.
6) being treated like an idiot with a fat wallet.
7) having to jump through hoops and pseudo contracts just to buy something.
8) being told I have/own something but... not really.
Screw the system and all the players in it. I got some power and not only am I going to wield it to bring about my sense of justice and make me whole, but I will, so help me god, dispense some good old revenge... its gotten cold enough!
I remember those times. It wasn't ad free, but premium cables' benefit was almost no ads. Today, the actual "content" seems to have been reduced quite a bit. The time wasted is up, with the value add down, is it any wonder that the consumer is looking at alternatives. We used to call milking the crowd in running the "A-Team" in the afternoon and a rerun late night but today, that term doesn't do any justice.
..." at ending the show? Skip all this crap and put up the credits longer or something or maybe even more ads!
...) and because the brain dead public [we think] eats it up (as there is nothing else to watch), ever bloody network copies it with their own version. NO one wants to take a risk with new ideas, cause they are too scared! The public is made even dumber by being bombarded by the same drivel on all 100 channels.
1) The obvious is the reruns. God, there are so many; nuff said on that.
2) These days, most ads seem to be about OTHER shows on the same channel. Do people really need to be told 3-4 times over that "A new Grey's Anatomy is coming up next"? I am sure that viewership not only knows that, but already figured out how to set up the DVR/Tivo, and whom/where to write death-threats to in case of a rumored canceling.
3) Why do many shows do a recap of the previous show for more than a minute? People who missed the show probably won't get much from a recap and people who didn't, don't need it!!
4) Why do many shows do a "preview" before the start of the show and before every commercial break? And then a small introduction after the ads? Finally a "Next week on
5) Most channels are just copy cats. Some idiot gets a retarded idea (survivor, real life,
6) Have the seasons gotten shorter? And I am not talking about just the writers strike. There seem to be so few episodes aired for so many shows. Actors seem to take longer vacations than teachers! Hell, many of them don't even have paid actors!
All in all, there just seems to be so much "wasted" air time through out the day that you would think that the providers would either use it to increase the value-add content or put up more ads. TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring. Our society has gone from offering the next greatest new thing to limiting what's on the shelf so that people are forced to settle for something as its better than nothing.
If you are going to get down to pure Marketing, then the first question is "Who is the customer?" In most OSS cases, it is the developer(s), and thus most marketing to/for them is already done. Everyone else is a user, and users aren't important, just customers are (textbooks are the classic example). This is the key difference between "free as in beer" and commercial offerings. I think the former creates superior solutions, and the later provides to a greater audience.
The most successful (defined by users, not developers) projects are those that create secondary/sister entities whose whole purpose is to consider the regular PC user as the potential customer base AND most importantly have some say in the SDLC.
Currently China is basically borrowing from its own people to keep them happily employed. The borrowed money is lent to the US who in turn fuel the world economy, and keep the Chinese people employed. This continuous lending (basically based on faith in China and US) can't keep going. The carpenter can't keep doing free work for you on the basis that you will pay him in the future, just so he can keep employed. Eventually, his living and raw material expenses will catch up to him, and he will need you to make basic payments. And one day you won't be able to afford the interest plus expenses on the loans (current housing situation).
Eventually, there will be a sharp currency correction (ex: Russia). But here, the correction will be for the US dollar to drop, and Chinese yuan to go up. US exports will become cheap to the world and businesses will move back into the US. China will have reduced growth as the world can't afford their goods anymore. Unfortunately, most of their buying power is US currency based (all eggs in one basket)... which means their buying power drops too. China obviously doesn't want this, but can't do anything. If they diversify their buying power into other currencies, they accelerate the currency correction process.
Shhh, the 1st rule of IRC, you don't talk about...
Next up, socially and politically insensitive speech, porn, nude/violent/graphic images, low price merchants, and communication with unenlightened societies.
So many to choose from, it makes me dizzy just from thinking... oh, thinking!
I am using sigma in terms of meeting a quality specification. Based upon your definitions of "product," most things produced in mass quantities fall into a bell curve. In this case, we are talking about hardware. So, take the processor for hypothetical example: we want a processor that can be clocked at 2GHz and lasts for 4 years.
Say a properly setup manufacturing process will yield a product population meeting a specification of 1.8GHz to 2.2Ghz and lasts 3.8 to 4.2 years. I am pulling numbers, but 6 sigma says something like: out of a population of 1 million, there shouldn't be more than 3-4 that fall outside the defined specification. You are to continue to improve the entire process until our quality control tests show that the process has reached this reliability level.
A 1 sigma means roughly 2 out of every 3 products are messed up and do not meet your product specification. And 7 sigma I believe is 5-10 (?) out of a _billion_. Getting to 6 sigma is very difficult and very expensive, but 7 is even more expensive. What most companies do is try to get to 4, 5, or 6 sigma (depending on what the product is) and just fix the defects on the tail end when the consumer complains through warranties and such.
Back to our reliable hardware, I would like to think that Apple tests their hardware to a higher quality. What I mean is their hardware meets a more stringent specification test (3.9-4.1 years failure and 1.9-2.1 GHz). But this costs more, and thus they expect more. BUT, just because you tested something to be reliable to a lower specification, doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't meet a higher specification.
As a consumer, you might as well buy the less stringently tested product and take the good chance of having something that meets a higher test than pay the extra just for passing the more stringent test.
There is far far more to it, but that was the quick end. On a side note, I bet the processor manufacturing process is around 3-5 sigmas. I doubt they are anywhere close to a 6 sigma.
Its the same hardware, the same silicon, same chips and they all come from the same process. Just the source and and QC will be different.
Now, the Apple hardware might be 7 Sigma, and the rest of the guys are probably 6 Sigma. The difference is barely worth the price. But the difference is so small that you might as well buy the 6 Sigma and have a high chance of actually having a 7 Sigma or better on hand instead of paying extra just to guarantee yourself a 7 Sigma.
Especially console games. I used to be a minor game addict in the CS days and before and recently got back into gaming with a PS3 instead of a high end computer (for those of you looking at the same choices, this was a mistake. get a big screen and a high-end, upgradeable PC).
I must say, that games have gotten worse, and more expensive. With the 360 and PS3, all I have seen in gain is graphics (which don't compare to high-end PCs). Instead of a player having a bar that shows how tired he is or how shiny his skin has gotten from sweat, we have "Ohhh look we can see the camera flashes off a bead of sweat." Everything else has mostly stayed the same or gotten worse.
From a tech standpoint (engine perf, features, mod capability...), I think the curve has stayed about average.
BUT the PRICING... has gone up. Now, games cost $50-$80 on a console! Marketing seems to have done nothing but add to the end price. It says nothing about the actual game. You need to wait 3-6 months to see the resale prices which actually reflect the value of the game. By then the marketing has died off and the reviews are from real gamers who say more than "EA is a great company so this game is great."
All 5 of my multiplatform games have crashed one time or another. It is HORRIBLE for a console game that costs ~$60 to CRASH!!! A PC game crashing is understandable, but a console game? Game makers should be ashamed of themselves for some of the garbage that comes out. Quality control is obviously what they moved to marketing.
I would say primarily because most people who could afford the luxury of traveling via a car saw it as a major cost savings. Not to mention, many businesses that normally wanted their workers to go to client sites started making them work remotely in the home offices which are usually next to rail.
I have a few friends who have the availability of rail, but enjoy driving their cars to work. Some of them switched to rail when the prices went up, but some stayed with the car. One lives 10 minutes from a station, has free parking, but would still rather take the toll road and pay for parking and gas. The trip difference is 5 minutes, but he is willing and is easily able to afford the luxury of a car.
I am sure there were many that were in similar positions that had to shift their affordability as the car option's travel expenses inflated by a 100%. More still got out of their homes and had the flexibility to locate closer to transit.
I disagree with the grandparent but want to pick on your post. The American rail transit system is horrible except in some places such as the Northeast (New York to DC) and Chicago. And its still a joke compared to the rest of the world. Pretty much ever where else, for the average commuter, I would say the transit systems' faults are: time, effort, and flexibility in comparison to a car.
Take Atlanta for example, our county has a separate transit system. But luckily, I would say 50% of the businesses in Atlanta are connected directly to rail and around 20% more via a connecting bus. For me to just get into the Atlanta transit system, I need to walk a mile, and take two buses to link up with one of the rail stations. That takes me 1-2 hours (the buses come every 30 min). Via car, it will take me 1/2 to 1 hour, depending on traffic. This is how most cities with transit systems are. I could move to a better location and have the Atlanta transit system within 15 minutes, but my living expenses will shoot up by 40%. Even with the horrible gas prices, the car was a better deal.
And our national rail system (Amtrak) is a joke. It costs less money and about 10-30% of the time to buy an undiscounted Airline ticket for the same trip. Amtrak has been shown that it isn't economically feasible, yet we keep it around for sentimental reasons.
However, overall, our highway system is the best in the world. If you look at urban planning and population densities (or just look at a telecom's coverage map), you will see that our highway system is equivalent to most countries' rail systems. Where most countries use rail to transport freight, and then local trucking, we use a significant amount of just trucking across the country.
We are far too economically, commercially, and socially invested in our highways to ever make mass public transit an _efficient_ alternative. It would take too many people picking up their homes and moving into smaller plots or too many complex rail networks (see Philly) to feed spread out communities. People will just NOT be willing to do it in large enough numbers for it to be worth it.
My area (Smyrna and Marietta) is a perfect example. We have massive traffic jams that can double if not triple your vehicle commute into Atlanta. However, the area is rather willing to deal with the traffic than connect via a rail to the Atlanta system. Although there is already a freight rail system in place and a perfect abandoned location for a station, the people just don't want it. One, the traffic doesn't effect us as much (just the ppl from further north that drive past us) so why should we foot the bill. And two, all the parties between want a rail station which means too many stops, which means a slow rail commute, which means it isn't worth it. Plus, if we put it up, people will see that the parallel highway is faster anyway with less cars.
There are other reasons, but these two are pretty much it for every city in the US.
Sorry, I meant to put this disclaimer in, but forgot.
I used to work at Fannie Mae through a contracted company. We did Regulations work. On that, I would say FM has its problems, just like all companies do, but as per their management, they were probable somewhere between a government entity and private sector.
Also on the article, I think we are missing quite a bit of information. Knowing their systems and the external cash flow relationships, I think what is simply stated is actually quite impossible. I doubt it would have been as simple to make a virus, and get away with it.
Not being able to buy conforming loans is not an option for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The bank goes, "Here is a consolidated loan that meets the specs. Give me money." They have a little control over why types of loans and the ratio mix they currently accept, but much of the control over what is rejected is based on the conformity.
I remember that FM in the beginning stated that due to the newly realized risk (which the banks actually restated), they would have to cut down on the number of subprime and similar loans accepted by them to reduce the over all reassessed risk of its assets. But then the government stepped in and said no, as that would adversely effect the current messed up market. A kind of "Keep doing the wrong thing, maybe it will blow over."
There are many parties involved here well beyond FM. The largest blame goes to banks and the real estate industry which in some cases, fudged the load parameters to pass the conformity as they knew NO one else would buy that crappy $500k loan to the guy who made $30k a year. The bank always took the blunt of the liability (due to the load structure w/ FM), but they got greedy thinking the house comes with the liability, and if the house appreciates, they come out way on top. The house estimates weren't realistic as they were based on the past few years of performance and not actual market conditions (key factor: rate of increase in people's salaries). The agents enticed the home owners and sellers to buy or sell on this false home evaluation.
China and US are also to blame as the former kept buying the securities backed by the US. China owns the majority of US debt through the securities. Normally what would have happened is that a buyer of a loan will eventually go "You got enough debt, I don't think you can afford anymore." or "I hold enough of your debt, and cash, you got to give me a far better return." Instead, China just kept regulating their currency, keeping the dollar well over valued and kept buying securities. On the flip side, the seller of the loan, not being able to make payments would have either stopped asking for crack money (reduce riskly loans) or default on many of the loans. But instead we stole money from those who still had it, to keep the lender happy and STILL asked for a shit load of loans (FM tax bailout by government via infusion of cash).
Home owners and home builders are to blame. People don't like this idea but the majority of the owners who can't pay fall into two groups: those who were stupid, and those who saw it as a great short term investment. Both of these should have done more homework. The later deserve losing their assets and the bankruptcy. And stupidity doesn't mean you get a bailout. Instead of letting these folks fall into bankruptcy (remember, this is a viable option in the US), we want to protect them and keep them in their homes. What people don't realize is that bankruptcy gives you a clean slate, quickly resets assets to their correct values, and teaches a valuable lesson. But instead we would rather protect them from a lesson learned, keep the home price overinflated (the perpetuating cause of this mess) and require overinflated loans to continue the mess. So basically we let the idiots keep the homes, new owners (includes honest, responsible ppl) out in the cold (plus we take their money through taxes), and reward poor decisions (some of them being mistakes is irrelevant). Our HOPE is that dollar inflation (bailouts, government overspending not compensated via taxes, overvalued assets, and China floating their currency) will devalue the homes and increase salaries (not actual value) enough to make us whole again. The retarded home builders didn't think, "There are 10 skyscrapers being built in Atlanta, will there be a market for a 11th?" or "I am building 500 overpriced $500k homes here, are there that many buyers in this area?" Their business cycles are in terms of 3-5 years, yet they based their estimates AT most on the last 6?!!! If they looked further back, ins
Emacs. There, I fixed the finger spasms for the both of you. ^_^
When gas prices were about $3, my monthly gas bill was about $100 a month for my '97 Maxima. My dad's '97 Camery does even better. I think it is a better option for those big SUV owners to settle for a smaller car or SUV (my cousin's CR-V gets 27mpg). And rent the big Home Depot trucks/vans or Avis SUVs when needed.
As much as I want elec/hybrid (I don't consider hydrogen to be a valid alternative in place of elec), I don't think they are a viable alternative for some time. The tech or the market for what works (50 mile range) just isn't there. I have driven multiple hybrids, and the Prius is the only on that comes close. But it costs $5000 more than I feel its value is worth. I don't mind paying 10% more to feel better, but 25-30% more?
Losses are high, transportation is a pain, storage is a pain, and remember, we are talking about water that is 20C above absolute zero or just really, really cold.
The explosion would look much cooler.