simple navy, charcoal, or sharkskin suit will do much to set you apart from bland tasteless masses that insist on only wearing black.
I'd extend that even further.
Provided that you have sufficient funds for more than one suit (and at $250 including tailoring for a cheap suit, it should be too much of a problem), the black suit should be worn only at funerals.
Job interviews require a navy, dark brown, or dark grey suit -- navy is best, and the preferred material is a light wool. A very subtle pinstripe is good, and can be a way of adding "flare" within the requirements of a formal business environment. Note that a dark grey suit can also be used as your funeral suit.
If you must wear a jacket & tie at work, then wear anything but black.
As for people sweating in suits during the summer, one reason for that is most suits are three-season suits. It's just not appropriate to wear a ool suit in summer. An investment in two (or possibly three) summer-weight suits is a very good idea. Matte silk or rough-woven silk suits can be purchased for less than $300, and make a world of difference. Usually these are in lighter colors as well, and can also function as the de rigeur 'wedding suit'. If you're in a more relaxed area, you might be able to get away with a sport coat instead of a summer-weight suit.
In short, I think everyone should own a dark grey wool suit, a navy (or possibly brown) wool suit, and one summer-weight suit (light grey or dark green are good choices). Following those, a black suit for funerals (and those of us who've been around a while know how often we need to wear it, unfortunately). After that, the suits you purchase should reflect your needs.
I don't need to wear a suit to work anymore, so I wear three suits -- one for interviews, one for funerals, and one for weddings, basically. The other three suits I own are gathering dust in my closet, as I rarely need to wear them -- usually when I have two weddings in one weekend, for example.
So basically they're telling you not to eat soap, and that there is a Federal law out there somewhere that says "don't eat soap!"
Not to nitpick (well, to nitpick a little), it has to do with FDA approval.
See, those anti-viral Kleenex have been approved by the FDA as an OTC medication.
Read the labels of any OTC medication you have in your medicine closet. Every single one of them has a statement to the effect that usage in a manner other than as directed by the labeling is a federal offense.
This is because the FDA regulates what companies can put on the labels of their products. It was originally intended to prevent the snake-oil salesmen out there from taking advantage of an ill-informed public, and to prevent idiots from hurting themselves or others. The use-as-labeled requirement is because the FDA can't test every usage of a product, so they test and approve what is labeled (aside from basic tox tests, etc).
I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?
Both. The Senate and House must pass identical versions. E.g., there is no final bill until both Houses pass the same bill.
At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.
More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.
In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.
It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.
Poppycock.
The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.
It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.
To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.
That's a little confusing, since the meaning of "it" changes during your sentence. Obama voted to strike the immunity measure, McCain voted to keep the immunity measure, and Clinton was too busy kissing babies to vote.
I see a lot of confused posts about phishing and spam. Phishing is a subset of spam.
I'd say more that phishing intersects spam.
There are phishing attempts from spoofed websites, etc, and these cannot be classed as spam. It's less common now than it used to be, mostly due to awareness by users and vigilance by "real" domainholders, but IIRC the original phishing attempts were by spoofing domains & taking advantage of common typos and url entry errors (eg, secondcommunitybank.com vs secondcommunity.com or somesuch).
I know it's kinda outside the scope of the article & discussion, but I thought I'd point it out.
An FBI spokeswoman then invited Wired to submit a list of questions about the technology, but hasn't gotten back to us.
Well, what should Wired expect? The FBI invited Wired to submit list of questions. Now wired is compaining that the FBI isn't following up on their request for questions?
Sheesh, I mean, I know IT reporting has gone down teh tubes, but really... maybe if Wired wants to get info from the FBI, they should actually respond to the invite and submit questions -- maybe then they'd hear back.
Why do you think when consoles are first released they're $200-$300 (last generation for example) and then five years later they're floating around $100 retail? Some of it has to do with the bottom line, but most of it has to do with the falling price of components over time due to exactly what was listed in the summary, exactly what is happening here.
That's a misunderstanding of what drives product pricing.
Pricing strategy has a bit to do with COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) but has a lot more to do with the demand.
Pricing is set to maximize profits (or minimize losses), which means that Sony will be looking to maximise the product [units sold] * [net gain/loss per unit]. Over time, as the demand curve changes, it's more important to reduce prices in order to hit the sweet spot (usually a price point on the demand curve) that results in maximal profit.
The reason I bring up a very basic pricing model is because there are intangible profits to Sony to sell more units -- number one being high potential licensing revenue from Blu-ray, which depends heavily on penetration of the PS3. Hence potential licensing revneue needs to be factored into the unit profitability of the PS3. Regardless of reduction in unit cost, the pricing equation for the PS3 is tilted heavily in favor of lower prices due to this expectation of future revenue.
To get back on track with the lower prices over time, I don't expect the PS3 price to drop extensively over time until production costs are far, far lower. Once Sony has captured enough of the hi def market for Blu-Ray to become the de facto standard (assuming that happens), then the potential licensing revenue for Blu-Ray sales drops quite a bit for each unit sold. Thus, pure profitability of each unit sold drives pricing more, which means that the price can only drop in response to reduction in unit cost, since by that point the PS3 will be on a very thin margin.
Well, that's almost enough rambling for me... I assume you understand all this, but I find it's very common for people on/. to believe that unit cost is what drives pricing. People expect suppliers to drop prices when suppliers' costs drop, but that's not really how it works... until the demand curve changes in response to the lower unit cost becoming common knowledge.
There are different kinds of oversight. It doesn't make sense to do plant inspections all the time because what you really are inspecting are the systems not what is getting made. There should, however, be more regular oversight of what is getting made in terms of reviewing documentation and quality test results.
Good point.
I think that plant inspections should follow more on the line of financial audits. Full process audits as done now, audit of process adherence regularly at more frequent intervals. When audits/inspections are so far apart, there is greater tendency for process exceptions to be mishandled or ignored (such as example in TFA).
Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs".
Ah, the goold old tragedy of the commons. Too bad no one's figured out a workable solution on the large scale yet that doesn't involve massive government regulation and penalties for abusing the commons.
And, as it turns out, yes you can. The key to being energy efficient is using less energy!
So if I leave Chicago heading eastbound at 9 PM and drive 5 miles at 7000 rpm in my convertible... and you leave NY at 10:30 PM and drive westound for 50 miles at 2000 rpms in your Canyonero... who has used less energy? But importantly, who was more energy efficient*?
And most importantly, and what time does train A jump the tracks and decapitate me for bringing a car analogy to a football analogy fight?
Well, it is possible for states to sue a federal government agency for failing to uphold the law. The tricky part is proving damages and culpability. As long as the FDA comples with the letter of the law, no chance.
It's kind of tough when the regs governng the FDA are written by the people they are supposed to regulate... take a look at who gets to serve hgh up in the FDA. Almost all of them are ex-pharma execs.
A little paint never hurt anyone! When I was a child, paint was considered a delicacy! It was like getting a piece of plasterboard with a prize!
I think the lead in that paint may have had more of an effect than you think.
Besides, when I was a young'un, the plasterboard would have been the prize. We had to make our own drywall from gypsum lumps and the paper we made by chewing up wasps nests and spitting out the eggs, larvae, and wasps to make pulp.
Not sure if your error was intentional, but I bet it was... sure to get a lot of responses.
You want the FDA to get anal retentive on your medications, fine. Just realize those expensive drugs are going to get a little more expensive and sick people who are poor might not be able to afford them anymore.
That's horsepoop. Manufacturing costs of prescription medications are a small fraction of the total cost, except for orphan drugs with low usage. High-volume drugs, such as the ones mentioned in TFA, have an extremely small unit cost in relation to market price. R&D, marketing, even admin overhead dwarf manufacturing costs.
Another fine post from EDJ. Full of inaccuracies, conjecture, and trite sentences devoid of real meaning.
The FDA's San Juan office has 22 inspectors who devote about a quarter of their time to pharmaceutical plants. They typically visit the factories once every two years, more often if there are consumer complaints or the company has repeated infractions.
[snip] Scharmann, a consulting editor for the watchdog publication Dickinson's FDA Review, said the FDA is concerned by anything that affects drug quality but considers the likelihood that the companies may file legal challenges to enforcement actions.
Two interesting things there -- first is that plants are only inspected every two years unless they are flagged due to poor prior performance or consumer complaints. Why not have inspections with a random interval? Yah, I know -- cost. But considering how many pills these plants pump out, you'd think there'd be stricter oversight. Or is it that we just trust pharmaceutical companies to do the right thing (which means avoid the nightmare of tainted pills splashed across the evening news)?
Other interesting point is that the FDA chooses not to fine companies/enforce regulations because of the cost of responding to legal challenges from the manufacturers. What excatly is the point of having oversight and inspections, then? Basically, the FDA must have crystal-clear evidence of plant-to-market malefeasance before they can do anything.
I guess the pharma industry has gotten their money's worth with their campaign contributions. A hamstrung FDA on a shoestring budget means strong profits for big pharma.
Hrm. This is more common in states where there is no state income tax, as they are more dependent on property taxes.
Out of curiousity, are you above the median in home value for your area?
Slashdot Mirror
Provided that you have sufficient funds for more than one suit (and at $250 including tailoring for a cheap suit, it should be too much of a problem), the black suit should be worn only at funerals.
Job interviews require a navy, dark brown, or dark grey suit -- navy is best, and the preferred material is a light wool. A very subtle pinstripe is good, and can be a way of adding "flare" within the requirements of a formal business environment. Note that a dark grey suit can also be used as your funeral suit.
If you must wear a jacket & tie at work, then wear anything but black.
As for people sweating in suits during the summer, one reason for that is most suits are three-season suits. It's just not appropriate to wear a ool suit in summer. An investment in two (or possibly three) summer-weight suits is a very good idea. Matte silk or rough-woven silk suits can be purchased for less than $300, and make a world of difference. Usually these are in lighter colors as well, and can also function as the de rigeur 'wedding suit'. If you're in a more relaxed area, you might be able to get away with a sport coat instead of a summer-weight suit.
In short, I think everyone should own a dark grey wool suit, a navy (or possibly brown) wool suit, and one summer-weight suit (light grey or dark green are good choices). Following those, a black suit for funerals (and those of us who've been around a while know how often we need to wear it, unfortunately). After that, the suits you purchase should reflect your needs.
I don't need to wear a suit to work anymore, so I wear three suits -- one for interviews, one for funerals, and one for weddings, basically. The other three suits I own are gathering dust in my closet, as I rarely need to wear them -- usually when I have two weddings in one weekend, for example.
See, those anti-viral Kleenex have been approved by the FDA as an OTC medication.
Read the labels of any OTC medication you have in your medicine closet. Every single one of them has a statement to the effect that usage in a manner other than as directed by the labeling is a federal offense.
This is because the FDA regulates what companies can put on the labels of their products. It was originally intended to prevent the snake-oil salesmen out there from taking advantage of an ill-informed public, and to prevent idiots from hurting themselves or others. The use-as-labeled requirement is because the FDA can't test every usage of a product, so they test and approve what is labeled (aside from basic tox tests, etc).
Badger badger badger badger?
You were supposed to write:
At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.
More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.
In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.
The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.
It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.
You keep misquoting Vincini. I do not think he said what you think he said.
What kind of order of operations did the teach where you learned to do algebra?
Clearly he meant 43.
Which, incidentally, is one better than the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
There are phishing attempts from spoofed websites, etc, and these cannot be classed as spam. It's less common now than it used to be, mostly due to awareness by users and vigilance by "real" domainholders, but IIRC the original phishing attempts were by spoofing domains & taking advantage of common typos and url entry errors (eg, secondcommunitybank.com vs secondcommunity.com or somesuch).
I know it's kinda outside the scope of the article & discussion, but I thought I'd point it out.
whoosh
If you're going to wear the tinfoil hat, please make sure to leave enough ventilation for you brain to operate properly.
That's weird -- In my alternate Soviet universe, the microwave hose really banged up my wife's startup.
Now our stock options are worthless.
/Was gonna go with 'I started up my microwave and then banged my wife with a hose' but I thought better of it for some reason.
Sheesh, I mean, I know IT reporting has gone down teh tubes, but really... maybe if Wired wants to get info from the FBI, they should actually respond to the invite and submit questions -- maybe then they'd hear back.
/Sorry, deliberately obtuse tonight.
Pricing strategy has a bit to do with COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) but has a lot more to do with the demand.
Pricing is set to maximize profits (or minimize losses), which means that Sony will be looking to maximise the product [units sold] * [net gain/loss per unit]. Over time, as the demand curve changes, it's more important to reduce prices in order to hit the sweet spot (usually a price point on the demand curve) that results in maximal profit.
The reason I bring up a very basic pricing model is because there are intangible profits to Sony to sell more units -- number one being high potential licensing revenue from Blu-ray, which depends heavily on penetration of the PS3. Hence potential licensing revneue needs to be factored into the unit profitability of the PS3. Regardless of reduction in unit cost, the pricing equation for the PS3 is tilted heavily in favor of lower prices due to this expectation of future revenue.
To get back on track with the lower prices over time, I don't expect the PS3 price to drop extensively over time until production costs are far, far lower. Once Sony has captured enough of the hi def market for Blu-Ray to become the de facto standard (assuming that happens), then the potential licensing revenue for Blu-Ray sales drops quite a bit for each unit sold. Thus, pure profitability of each unit sold drives pricing more, which means that the price can only drop in response to reduction in unit cost, since by that point the PS3 will be on a very thin margin.
Well, that's almost enough rambling for me... I assume you understand all this, but I find it's very common for people on
Thanks for the insight.
:) -- and perhaps I didn't take enough of it with a grain of salt.
I agree, by-and-large, that the major players play by the rules.
I guess I got caught up a little bit in the sensationalism of the article
I think that plant inspections should follow more on the line of financial audits. Full process audits as done now, audit of process adherence regularly at more frequent intervals. When audits/inspections are so far apart, there is greater tendency for process exceptions to be mishandled or ignored (such as example in TFA).
And most importantly, and what time does train A jump the tracks and decapitate me for bringing a car analogy to a football analogy fight?
*[hint] it's a trick question.
Well, it is possible for states to sue a federal government agency for failing to uphold the law. The tricky part is proving damages and culpability. As long as the FDA comples with the letter of the law, no chance.
It's kind of tough when the regs governng the FDA are written by the people they are supposed to regulate... take a look at who gets to serve hgh up in the FDA. Almost all of them are ex-pharma execs.
Besides, when I was a young'un, the plasterboard would have been the prize. We had to make our own drywall from gypsum lumps and the paper we made by chewing up wasps nests and spitting out the eggs, larvae, and wasps to make pulp.
Not sure if your error was intentional, but I bet it was... sure to get a lot of responses.
That's horsepoop. Manufacturing costs of prescription medications are a small fraction of the total cost, except for orphan drugs with low usage. High-volume drugs, such as the ones mentioned in TFA, have an extremely small unit cost in relation to market price. R&D, marketing, even admin overhead dwarf manufacturing costs.
Another fine post from EDJ. Full of inaccuracies, conjecture, and trite sentences devoid of real meaning.
/Disgusted with myself for feeding the troll.
Other interesting point is that the FDA chooses not to fine companies/enforce regulations because of the cost of responding to legal challenges from the manufacturers. What excatly is the point of having oversight and inspections, then? Basically, the FDA must have crystal-clear evidence of plant-to-market malefeasance before they can do anything.
I guess the pharma industry has gotten their money's worth with their campaign contributions. A hamstrung FDA on a shoestring budget means strong profits for big pharma.
Hrm. This is more common in states where there is no state income tax, as they are more dependent on property taxes.
Out of curiousity, are you above the median in home value for your area?
Though, I do believe Nader has been looking for publicity for his beliefs, where Trent is looking for $$ and attention, not necessarily in that order.