There have been drugs created that can cure awful, obscure diseases that have never seen the market because they wouldn't be profitable for this reason.
Actually, the FDA orphan drug program fixes that problem (to some extent). The problem raised by the spectre of patent avoidance is that those drugs will never be created, not that once created they will langor in some unprofitability hole.
It's only "blackbox" if the results cannot be differentiated from another browser/platform.
No, that is not what blackbox means. Blackbox is when the user sees only input and output. (Input: www.somewebsite.com; output: rendered page). A large portion of users are not even aware of alternatives to IE.
As it stands, by your own arguments, that means web developers should be writing to IE's peculiarities rather than to standard.
No, it means that web developers should be writing to both, which is the current situation. And yet if IE 8 is released with a standards-compliant setup, why bother?
A friend of mine actually raised some "interest" from some governmental agencies when he bought a fair bit of ASA. As a chemist, his reasoning was that it's cheaper than aspirin and working just as well
Something was lost in the translation here... ASA is aspirin. Just as APAP is acetominophen.
So he bought aspirin uncut and in bulk.
BTW, how's his ulcer doing? People don't take that much aspirin without getting bleeding ulcers. Maybe he should try some of the drugs actually used to treat chronic migraines (ASA is not one of them).
For the evolution of forward-facing eyes, I am arguing that it is for a kind of x-ray vision. It actually allows us to see through stuff--like when you hold up a finger vertically and you see through it instead of beyond it. For animals that are large and living in forested environments, there should be selection pressure for forward-facing eyes, because you can actually see more of your environment.
That makes a lot of sense, and is very interesting to me since I recall learning that predators have forward facing eyes so they can better detect movement of prey (binocular vision) while prey animals have outward facing eyes so they can better be aware of threats (greater field of vision).
I had always wondered why elephants had forward-facing eyes, since they are not predators... and this helps explain it. I had always supposed that it was because they were social animals, and communication ability and multiple individuals scanning for threats was better than one individual with a larger field of view. This makes even more sense if the scanning in a smaller area is more effective due to the binocular vision associated with forward-facing eyes.
Interesting read, but hardly source material. I've read things like that link before, and again, I'm befuddled by the lack of references and source info.
I'm aware of the information in general, but cannot find anywhere an analysis with verifiable source documents.
Maybe I'm asking too much -- or maybe I've identified an opportunity for myself to create the same & publish.
Most users don't care about some arbitrary "standard," even if it was designed for optimum functionality and safety: all they care about is "Does it look good."
I'm unsure of who you mean by "users" -- do you mean web developers, or end-viewers?
If you mean developers, then adhering to standards and "looking good" are the same thing -- since more and more end-viewers use browsers other than IE. Developers should care about adhering to standards because not doing so may alienate some of their (or their employers') potential customers.
If you meant end-viewer, they aren't really germane to the discussion, since what we're discussing is in the blackbox to them. All they will understand is that some sites seem "broken"... not understanding that it's because they are using a non-compliant browser. Again this goes back to the developers, since it is their duty to make sure their website looks good (or even is viewable) by the most number of people.
Please note I'm generalizing here, I'm sure there are exceptions.
If I were running for a major political office, I'd certainly want someone competent runing my webserver.
Ambiguous typo there -- do you want someone competent running your webserver or ruining your webserver?
Or did you actually mean runing? Perhaps you have "verbed" the noun "rune", in which case I expect that someone should explain to you that politics doesn't work like Diablo II, and you can't add runes to objects to make them more effective in real life.
Thanks in avdance for the clarification, it will help me understand your point much more clearly.
Subsidy payments received do NOT affect the bottom line the same way as tax concessions do. Tax concessions are a reduction in below-the-line expense -- they do not affect the taxes owed by the organization. Subsidy payments are either income or reduction in above-the-line expense resulting in an increase of tax. Another option is to use the subsidy as an offset to the purchase/buildout of capital, in which case the subsidy will reduce below-the-line depreciation, which can also be deducted from taxable income to a certain threshold.
Tax laws are complicated, and financial accounting is also complicated -- just because the two items affect the cash position in the same way does not mean that they affect the financial statement the same way. Also note that they DO NOT affect the cash position the same way, since a subsidy is typically realized far before a tax consession is realized, resulting in additional income from investment during the time gap.
Can you provide a link or a reference, I'd like to read more about it & haven't found a good summary or details anywhere.
The best I've seen is estimates of 1-2 billion in federal, state, and local funds to build out backbone which was later privatized.
Most of what I can actually substantiate is not a direct subsidy, but rather allowing telcos to add charges to phone (etc) bills in order to cross-subsidize internet. This is different from a government subsidy, since people can cancel their phone service and move to cell-only if they choose (since taxes are unavoidable, direct subsidies are different).
How much do you really think it costs Motorola to make a free phone at a plant in Mexico? $4-$6 for the really cheap ones that are given out free. Maybe $25 for the really fancy ones.
In principle, I agree with you. But...
Unit cost of production is not the only cost here. R&D, buildout of the factory, shipping of finished units, licensing/development of the software, never mind all the overhead (admin, HR, accounting, legal, etc), plus costs such as advertising and marketing.
Also keep in mind that the unit cost is only so low when it is a high-volume product; it is precisely due to the agreements with Verizon/Cingular/etc that the economies of scale work out to make the unit cost of production so low for cell phones.
And as for the iPhone...
But ATT was dragged kicking and screaming to the IPHONE.
Verizon wouldn't make the deal and give up the control. They lose!
Horsepoop. AT&T wasn't dragged kicking and screaming, they were willful participants who negotiated well for exclusivity and a cut of sale price. From the beginning, Verizon's demands were far too high; also note that AT&T's global presence is much better than Verizon's, so AT&T makes a better partner for Apple than Verizon.
Anyone who's been watching computers for the past year could have compiled that list.
Duh. Gartner's target readers are not people who've been watching computers for the past year. Gartner's targets are the people who pay other people to watch computers, so that those people can pretend to know what they are talking about when they discuss new technologies with their minions.
That's for generic articles like this one; Gartner does some targeted research and analysis that's better, particularly if you pay a lot of cash.
I once had a friend who built an instantiation of LIFE in Excel. Using macros and stored VB code in each cell, he was able to have every cell look up the context of every other adjoining cell during each generation, and the cells would turn on and off accordingly.
That's a horrid way of running LIFE in Excel, no wonder it was slow.
I also built an instance of LIFE in Excel, using conditional formatting, the SUM function, and the IF function. Turned off autmoatic recalculation and F9'd each generation.
Did it work? Yes Was it quick and dirty? Yes.
From a programmer's perspective, it was Fugly. But from an Excel user's standpoint, it was nifty... I guess.
Your friend who wrote a LIFE instance in Excel did not use the correct tools in Excel. He used stored VB code instead of native functions -- bad move.
So my point is this: While any programming language has its strengths and weakness (and boy, does Excel/VBA have a lot of weaknesses as a programming language), the programmer's skill with, and understanding of, a language will often determine whether a particular language can be used effectively for a given task.
I've written instances of LIFE in Excel (5-6 years ago -- no VB needed, except when I wanted to automate generations, add in extra options, etc), Pascal (about 15 years ago), Basic (about 18-20 years ago). I'm not a professional developer (obviously:)). But I will tell you this -- by far, the easiest implementation for me was in Excel[1]. Decide how you want to handle your boundaries, set up one cell, copy, paste.
Use the right tool for the job. If you have no experience using a band saw, then it is not the right tool, and you should stick to the hacksaw.
[1] This is probably becuase Excel is the tool I use most on a daily basis. YMMV.
I'd agree with everything you've said, except to s/corruption/subversion.
It's not just that there are corrupt actors within the system, it's that the entire system has been subverted. At this point, it isn't even corruption, since the system is functioning as intended by those who have put it in place.
I guess it's semantics, really.
I too would move to another country, if it didn't mean I'd have to get a divorce and rarely see my kids.
It's an effort to forestall those moderators who will mod 'troll' or 'flamebait' without considering the actual point(s) made by the poster.
Some people mod in a rush, and a statement like that in a post signifies that the poster 1. Is aware that some people may be offended by the post but 2. Feel they have a valid point to make.
This is especially useful with potential flamebaits -- it will help prevent flame responses, hopefully leading to better discussion.
All in all, usually rewriting a post to make it less troll-ish or flamebait-ish works better than, or just as well as, writing "I'll probably be modded troll for this..."; however, it is usually much easier and quicker to just write the preface to the post.
You'll note that a preface/postscript intended to forestall and/or address negative commentary is pretty common with a lot of published works on 'hot' topics.
Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit?
Ask the poor fundamentalist Christians why they consistently vote against their own economic interests in favor of the economic interests of the wealthy.
It is very common in the US for people to vote against their own interests, because it is a two-party system. As you point out,
Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.
The use of wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc) by the party of the wealthy has led to tens of millions of people voting against their own interests because they place their vote based upon issues unrelated to their interests.
I agree with you that this has not come about from a purely organic evolution of culture -- it is documented that this is a planned strategy employed by the Republican party in the 80s and 90s -- and I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has operated the same way.
The deeper issue, of course, is that the American public does not have the ability to, or is not motivated to, see through the BS and analyze the issues critically. We are happy to be spoonfed soundbites and trite promises of little import.
I know I'm rehashing some of what you posted... but critical thinking has always been a skill not practiced by most people. So why has the lack of critical thinking become such a problem wrt the American electorate?
I would pose the following:
1. Mass media -- it has become very easy for those with money to brand themselves and issue marketing material 2. The scope and power of the US government is greater than ever before, meaning that the powers that be can wield more influence than ever before 3. The collusion between business and government is greater than ever before (with the possible exception of the period from 1900-1920). As Eisenhower said, beware the military-industrial complex -- except now, we have the military-industrial complex and the legislative-commercial complex.
This post is getting way too long, I'm sure there are other reasons why the American public is so susceptible to PR/BS from politicos. Offhand, I'd also mention that politics is a taboo subject in the US, which leads to even weaker understanding of the issues.
At any rate, I think you'd really enjoy the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank -- while it focuses on the Republicans' ability to manipulate the populace, I think the same theories apply to Democrats.
Looking forward to the next Windows, I have doubts that Microsoft can do anything at all, except make it worse.
So what you are saying is that Vista is a perfect OS that can't be improved upon?
Sheesh, that's some pretty subtle astroturfing there, Steve... masquerading as a good-ole-fashioned Slashdot MS detractor, but subverting the message to include how perfect Vista is... I'm impressed. And frankly, I didn't think you had it in you.
Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges
That's an oft-quoted myth.
In fact, a corporaiton's charter and bylaws determine what the goals of the organization are. Most public corporations include shareholder value and profits among the goals of the organization (why else would someone invest?), but many privatecorporations are not-for-profit; some actually exist to *lose* money (such as some incorporated charitable trusts with a schedule for payout).
At any rate, it is not a legal requirement to try to make money; it is a contractual obligation, which is different. You can't face charges for steering a company poorly, unless your acts themselves are illegal. You can, however, face a tort action for violating the company's charter if some of the shareholders feel there was gross negligence or willful wrongdoing.
Should I argue for restored access, highlight the fact that I am currently a human paperweight, request a severance package, or simply become the most prolific Slashdot poster over the next few weeks?
Is that a challenge?!
Good lord, man, do you know what you're doing? College just let out...
But if you're serious, I'm willing to take odds -- and willing to see if a challenge like that changes the character of slashdot during the event.
Now we just need sponsors and a catchy name, any suggestions out there?
That's a whole lotta floating stuff already in a relatively stable position (occupying a major ocean current vortex)I think there may be some confusion here between a stable system and a stable position.
I've seen plenty of small-scale models of this in rivers, where some foam floating on the surface is relatively stable in an eddy, but it tends to spin, it tends to break apart and come back together again, it tends to be very disturbed when it's windy...
Though I'd say that on a much larger scale, I could imagine it's theoretically possible to stabilize it somehow. I'm thinking, though, that anything very large might have trouble with stresses when storms come, so design would need to be modular with capability for flexion and possibly a mechanism for dispersion and reaccretion.
Seasteads are a great way to protect human rights because they protect the most fundamental human right, the one from which all others are derived: The right to vote with your feet.
But, since they are prohibitively expenseive to build, most people would only have the opportunity to vote with their flippers. Assuming they have access to cash and a store that sells them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not actually a ring, it's a tight spiral made of metal.
I, for one, welcome our magnetar-harnessing electricity-generation overlords.
No, it means that web developers should be writing to both, which is the current situation. And yet if IE 8 is released with a standards-compliant setup, why bother?
So he bought aspirin uncut and in bulk.
BTW, how's his ulcer doing? People don't take that much aspirin without getting bleeding ulcers. Maybe he should try some of the drugs actually used to treat chronic migraines (ASA is not one of them).
I had always wondered why elephants had forward-facing eyes, since they are not predators... and this helps explain it. I had always supposed that it was because they were social animals, and communication ability and multiple individuals scanning for threats was better than one individual with a larger field of view. This makes even more sense if the scanning in a smaller area is more effective due to the binocular vision associated with forward-facing eyes.
Interesting read, but hardly source material. I've read things like that link before, and again, I'm befuddled by the lack of references and source info.
I'm aware of the information in general, but cannot find anywhere an analysis with verifiable source documents.
Maybe I'm asking too much -- or maybe I've identified an opportunity for myself to create the same & publish.
If you mean developers, then adhering to standards and "looking good" are the same thing -- since more and more end-viewers use browsers other than IE. Developers should care about adhering to standards because not doing so may alienate some of their (or their employers') potential customers.
If you meant end-viewer, they aren't really germane to the discussion, since what we're discussing is in the blackbox to them. All they will understand is that some sites seem "broken"... not understanding that it's because they are using a non-compliant browser. Again this goes back to the developers, since it is their duty to make sure their website looks good (or even is viewable) by the most number of people.
Please note I'm generalizing here, I'm sure there are exceptions.
Or did you actually mean runing? Perhaps you have "verbed" the noun "rune", in which case I expect that someone should explain to you that politics doesn't work like Diablo II, and you can't add runes to objects to make them more effective in real life.
Thanks in avdance for the clarification, it will help me understand your point much more clearly.
Subsidy payments received do NOT affect the bottom line the same way as tax concessions do. Tax concessions are a reduction in below-the-line expense -- they do not affect the taxes owed by the organization. Subsidy payments are either income or reduction in above-the-line expense resulting in an increase of tax. Another option is to use the subsidy as an offset to the purchase/buildout of capital, in which case the subsidy will reduce below-the-line depreciation, which can also be deducted from taxable income to a certain threshold.
Tax laws are complicated, and financial accounting is also complicated -- just because the two items affect the cash position in the same way does not mean that they affect the financial statement the same way. Also note that they DO NOT affect the cash position the same way, since a subsidy is typically realized far before a tax consession is realized, resulting in additional income from investment during the time gap.
Can you provide a link or a reference, I'd like to read more about it & haven't found a good summary or details anywhere.
The best I've seen is estimates of 1-2 billion in federal, state, and local funds to build out backbone which was later privatized.
Most of what I can actually substantiate is not a direct subsidy, but rather allowing telcos to add charges to phone (etc) bills in order to cross-subsidize internet. This is different from a government subsidy, since people can cancel their phone service and move to cell-only if they choose (since taxes are unavoidable, direct subsidies are different).
Do you have any source info I can review?
Unit cost of production is not the only cost here. R&D, buildout of the factory, shipping of finished units, licensing/development of the software, never mind all the overhead (admin, HR, accounting, legal, etc), plus costs such as advertising and marketing.
Also keep in mind that the unit cost is only so low when it is a high-volume product; it is precisely due to the agreements with Verizon/Cingular/etc that the economies of scale work out to make the unit cost of production so low for cell phones.
And as for the iPhone...Horsepoop. AT&T wasn't dragged kicking and screaming, they were willful participants who negotiated well for exclusivity and a cut of sale price. From the beginning, Verizon's demands were far too high; also note that AT&T's global presence is much better than Verizon's, so AT&T makes a better partner for Apple than Verizon.
I keep seeing people write this, but I am unable to find good information to back it up. Are you repeating rumor, or can you substantiate?
Also, received tax breaks != "been paid".
That's for generic articles like this one; Gartner does some targeted research and analysis that's better, particularly if you pay a lot of cash.
I also built an instance of LIFE in Excel, using conditional formatting, the SUM function, and the IF function. Turned off autmoatic recalculation and F9'd each generation.
Did it work? Yes
Was it quick and dirty? Yes.
From a programmer's perspective, it was Fugly. But from an Excel user's standpoint, it was nifty... I guess.
Your friend who wrote a LIFE instance in Excel did not use the correct tools in Excel. He used stored VB code instead of native functions -- bad move.
So my point is this:
While any programming language has its strengths and weakness (and boy, does Excel/VBA have a lot of weaknesses as a programming language), the programmer's skill with, and understanding of, a language will often determine whether a particular language can be used effectively for a given task.
I've written instances of LIFE in Excel (5-6 years ago -- no VB needed, except when I wanted to automate generations, add in extra options, etc), Pascal (about 15 years ago), Basic (about 18-20 years ago). I'm not a professional developer (obviously
Use the right tool for the job. If you have no experience using a band saw, then it is not the right tool, and you should stick to the hacksaw.
[1] This is probably becuase Excel is the tool I use most on a daily basis. YMMV.
I'd agree with everything you've said, except to s/corruption/subversion.
It's not just that there are corrupt actors within the system, it's that the entire system has been subverted. At this point, it isn't even corruption, since the system is functioning as intended by those who have put it in place.
I guess it's semantics, really.
I too would move to another country, if it didn't mean I'd have to get a divorce and rarely see my kids.
It's an effort to forestall those moderators who will mod 'troll' or 'flamebait' without considering the actual point(s) made by the poster.
Some people mod in a rush, and a statement like that in a post signifies that the poster
1. Is aware that some people may be offended by the post but
2. Feel they have a valid point to make.
This is especially useful with potential flamebaits -- it will help prevent flame responses, hopefully leading to better discussion.
All in all, usually rewriting a post to make it less troll-ish or flamebait-ish works better than, or just as well as, writing "I'll probably be modded troll for this..."; however, it is usually much easier and quicker to just write the preface to the post.
You'll note that a preface/postscript intended to forestall and/or address negative commentary is pretty common with a lot of published works on 'hot' topics.
It is very common in the US for people to vote against their own interests, because it is a two-party system. As you point out,The use of wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc) by the party of the wealthy has led to tens of millions of people voting against their own interests because they place their vote based upon issues unrelated to their interests.
I agree with you that this has not come about from a purely organic evolution of culture -- it is documented that this is a planned strategy employed by the Republican party in the 80s and 90s -- and I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has operated the same way.
The deeper issue, of course, is that the American public does not have the ability to, or is not motivated to, see through the BS and analyze the issues critically. We are happy to be spoonfed soundbites and trite promises of little import.
I know I'm rehashing some of what you posted... but critical thinking has always been a skill not practiced by most people. So why has the lack of critical thinking become such a problem wrt the American electorate?
I would pose the following:
1. Mass media -- it has become very easy for those with money to brand themselves and issue marketing material
2. The scope and power of the US government is greater than ever before, meaning that the powers that be can wield more influence than ever before
3. The collusion between business and government is greater than ever before (with the possible exception of the period from 1900-1920). As Eisenhower said, beware the military-industrial complex -- except now, we have the military-industrial complex and the legislative-commercial complex.
This post is getting way too long, I'm sure there are other reasons why the American public is so susceptible to PR/BS from politicos. Offhand, I'd also mention that politics is a taboo subject in the US, which leads to even weaker understanding of the issues.
At any rate, I think you'd really enjoy the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank -- while it focuses on the Republicans' ability to manipulate the populace, I think the same theories apply to Democrats.
Sheesh, that's some pretty subtle astroturfing there, Steve... masquerading as a good-ole-fashioned Slashdot MS detractor, but subverting the message to include how perfect Vista is... I'm impressed. And frankly, I didn't think you had it in you.
In fact, a corporaiton's charter and bylaws determine what the goals of the organization are. Most public corporations include shareholder value and profits among the goals of the organization (why else would someone invest?), but many privatecorporations are not-for-profit; some actually exist to *lose* money (such as some incorporated charitable trusts with a schedule for payout).
At any rate, it is not a legal requirement to try to make money; it is a contractual obligation, which is different. You can't face charges for steering a company poorly, unless your acts themselves are illegal. You can, however, face a tort action for violating the company's charter if some of the shareholders feel there was gross negligence or willful wrongdoing.
Reminds me of a quote (sorry, don't recall the author, or the exact wording, so here's a paraphrase):
Good lord, man, do you know what you're doing? College just let out...
But if you're serious, I'm willing to take odds -- and willing to see if a challenge like that changes the character of slashdot during the event.
Now we just need sponsors and a catchy name, any suggestions out there?
Just curious as to how far your scoffing at the law goes... though this does seem like the most victimless violation ever