This really isn't any different from the common practice of including satellite radio, usually bundled with other car options, and charging a monthly fee to keep it enabled.
It also makes sense in cases where the vast majority of consumers would opt to include a feature and it's cheaper to include it on all cars than manufacture different parts and add options to your assembly line just for a couple cars. Case in point: Tesla included 60KWh batteries on its 40KWh models and software limited them to 40KWh. (reference: http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla...). At a later time, consumers can pay to unlock the extra capacity.
It actually could be useful to enable features at a later time - you might move to a cold state and really wish your car had heated seats. If it really does increase costs so much, there will certainly be some car manufacturers who opt to save costs and we can buy from them instead.
That said Facebook WRONGLY deactivated his account when he posted on Zuck's wall AND they quickly reinstated it when they found out what was actually going on.
How is it that they wrongly deactivated his account? He exploited a bug and used it to post on someone else's wall, just like any spammer would have. It's clearly fair to deactivate while investigating further to block him from using the exploit on anyone else.
There definitely are problems with the healthcare system, but the cause and effect implied by your post should be reversed. Healthcare costs won't do much to reduce chronic diseases - the ones you list will be more influenced by lifestyle choices and genetics. However, chronic disease rates will have a large impact on healthcare costs.
This means that you can't use high disease rates to support your argument that healthcare costs are higher in USA. It's likely that much of the higher costs are due to the higher disease rates and you need to normalize by disease rate before using per capita healthcare costs to implying that we're overspending.
This really just supports my main point: iPhone works better out of the box and Android needs work to get it right. IMO, iPhone is better for the non-technically inclined.
If you wanted bleeding edge updates, you should have chosen a Nexus device
The vast majority of Android devices sold are carrier branded. It's a fair criticism to say that Android devices have slow updates. Apple is definitely open to criticism over their closed model, but there are plenty of benefits that come from developing both SW and HW and forcing carriers to play by their rules.
Having switched, Android is much better than iOS, IMO, and once you break out of the lock-in, there's little reason to go back.
So every person that Samsung knocks away from Apple, is likely a permanent loss for Apple.
I switched from an iPhone to GSIII also and my experience has been different. The bigger screen makes the drawbacks worth it to me, but I wouldn't be able to recommend the phone to everyone. IMO, the iPhone works good enough right out of the box. Android might have more potential, but it takes some work to get right.
Cons: - Google/Samsung/Carrier branded apps. My AT&T SIII came with a "Messages", "Messaging" and "Messenger" app. In addition to the "ChatON" and "Talk" apps. There's also a "Play Music" vs "Music Player" and "Email" vs "Gmail". I can imagine the support nightmares if I bought one for my parents. - External memory card support depends on app (Ex: Spotify's current version has no support). Also, GSIII doesn't properly support ExFAT and it doesn't format an ExFAT card to FAT32 or let you know. In my case, files would disappear and there were a few 'card unreadable' errors before I did some research. - Doesn't charge properly in computer or car USB ports. I assume this means the GSIII isn't requesting high-power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Power) - Difficult to sync media. I don't particularly like iTunes, but it seemed to get the job done. - Slow updates. - Doesn't work as well with my car's Bluetooth. This may not be a Samsung issue, but iPhone tends to get more third-party testing and support because of the volume. - Doesn't support Bluetooth Smart sensors (Bluetooth Low Energy) even though it uses the same chip as the iPhone and advertises that support.
The fact that outsourcing occurs doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for American workers/people. It really depends on what's done with the money that's saved by moving lower-skill jobs overseas. If the extra cash is pocketed by executives, shareholders, etc., then of course it won't be too great for people. If the extra cash is used for something constructive -- research, reinvestment in infrastructure, making oneself more competitive as a business -- then the benefits do help both the country and the economy as a whole. The fact that most companies are publicly owned, for the most part, ensures that at least some, if not a lot, of the saved money will go into reinvestment. Shareholders do like money, but they also like knowing that their company won't go bankrupt with 10 year old infrastructure 10 years from now.
"Less domestic money available due to high unemployment" / "Less business coming into the company" --> Definately arguable assumptions. Workers will need to better educate themselves and can end up getting better jobs or other equivalent jobs in a healthy economy. Someone else has already mentioned that there are global companies that we are talking about, so the "less business into the company" doesn't really apply. As long as there's some money, somewhere, then the business should remain the same. If there's actually higher economic output as a result of the specialization that results from outsourcing, then there will actually be more money/opportunity for the company. The long term effect on their business is probably that they remain competitive and don't go out of business.
"Companies fail because there is no one "buying" their goods and services that they were so eager to lower the costs by foreign outsourcing" --> Has anyone actually avoided companies because of this? Have American consumers stopped buying from Dell, the number 1 computer manufacturer in the world because they outsource their customer service? I'm willing to be that most of the companies we interact with in our daily lives have and do outsource some function of their work. To argue the opposite, if companies -don't- outsource, they won't be as competitive as the companies that did. In order to cut costs to make up for this difference in labor cost, they'll cut R&D, leave employees with stagnant salaries, and in the end, harm the people it was trying to help by not outsourcing.
"There truly needs to be legislation restricting the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers" --> Isolationism has never worked as a national policy. Economics is pretty simple -- everyone does what they're best at doing. If India and China can provide low-cost labor, then they should provide low cost labor. If Americans beef up their talents and provide higher level functions -- design, management, and anything else that can be better done onsite -- then both countries stand to get a net benefit. If we took back all the jobs that have already gone overseas, we'd really be in big trouble. We'd have to go back to making car parts, making toys, growing food, and everything else no one really wants to do here. But, Yes!, that's a great idea--let's legislate to stop outsourcing, and -- don't stop there! -- let's take back all the jobs that have already been lost. It's pretty clear that outsourcing agriculture, and industry has allowed us to progress to a service-oriented country and that's not really a bad thing. When services are outsourced too, maybe we'll morph into a service-management coiuntry. No one really knows--but it's clear that isolating ourselves will be one of the worst possible things we can do.
Well, I guess I ranted for a bit, but I think that there's two sides to everything. Of course, you can't argue with people who do lose their jobs, but as a whole, I don't think this whole outsourcing this is that bad (in the long run).
These businesses may be entering a market that's already full of competition but I think the main idea is that regular people can loan small amounts of money, together effectively becoming as large a business as the existing businesses -- although the profits may be smaller, people aren't doing it for a living. Each person is giving a little, but they can effectively compete with large companies. (And losing $100 or so won't hurt the types of people who will invest money into P2P loans).
Although it might not be as large a benefit to investors, it could increase competition in an already competitive market and help borrowers to secure better loan terms. Hopefully, this could also help out people with poor credit ratings as there are more potential businesses to loan them money.
They probably censor it inside the client program like a spellchecker--so if you're in China, and you type something like "human rights violation" it can auto-correct it to "happiness". Then the word "happiness" will be encrypted and sent over the wire.
I drove through oregon awhile back from norcal...I thought it was ridiculous that I had to pay someone to pump gas for me, until I realized it was still cheaper than back home.
It seems to me like this is the typical problem with big business; big businesses can afford to buy tons of copies at once and ensure cheap prices, while small businesses get stuck with higher prices. In this case, the big businesses are the online game suppliers--it's tough to compete when they're buying it really, really cheap and don't have as much labor costs, no expensive rent, and can make up for the shipping cost by not paying tax (Correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone buys online from out of state, the government gets zero taxes right - none from consumer, none from business?)
Unless there's some way to get a distinct advantage over the online/big business, you're running a losing race. Like someone mentioned with Funcoland, the only things you're really got to your advantage are environment and community: and those didn't stop people from going to Walmart instead of the mom 'n' pop stores that got run out of business.
In reference to the junk games traded in for new games, you could always restrict trade-ins to used games--group games by 'value' and let them trade in within the same 'value' for nearly free, or pay money to upgrade up. A store where you could essentially buy one game, then trade it in a huge amount of time at very little cost would be appealing.
In conclusiong...umm...good luck?
Slashdot Mirror
This really isn't any different from the common practice of including satellite radio, usually bundled with other car options, and charging a monthly fee to keep it enabled.
It also makes sense in cases where the vast majority of consumers would opt to include a feature and it's cheaper to include it on all cars than manufacture different parts and add options to your assembly line just for a couple cars. Case in point: Tesla included 60KWh batteries on its 40KWh models and software limited them to 40KWh. (reference: http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla...). At a later time, consumers can pay to unlock the extra capacity.
It actually could be useful to enable features at a later time - you might move to a cold state and really wish your car had heated seats. If it really does increase costs so much, there will certainly be some car manufacturers who opt to save costs and we can buy from them instead.
it is an easy IRS write off.
Did you ask the IRS how easy it is to write off business expenses used only for personal reasons for a business that has no revenue?
That said Facebook WRONGLY deactivated his account when he posted on Zuck's wall AND they quickly reinstated it when they found out what was actually going on.
How is it that they wrongly deactivated his account? He exploited a bug and used it to post on someone else's wall, just like any spammer would have. It's clearly fair to deactivate while investigating further to block him from using the exploit on anyone else.
There definitely are problems with the healthcare system, but the cause and effect implied by your post should be reversed. Healthcare costs won't do much to reduce chronic diseases - the ones you list will be more influenced by lifestyle choices and genetics. However, chronic disease rates will have a large impact on healthcare costs.
This means that you can't use high disease rates to support your argument that healthcare costs are higher in USA. It's likely that much of the higher costs are due to the higher disease rates and you need to normalize by disease rate before using per capita healthcare costs to implying that we're overspending.
This really just supports my main point: iPhone works better out of the box and Android needs work to get it right. IMO, iPhone is better for the non-technically inclined.
If you wanted bleeding edge updates, you should have chosen a Nexus device
The vast majority of Android devices sold are carrier branded. It's a fair criticism to say that Android devices have slow updates. Apple is definitely open to criticism over their closed model, but there are plenty of benefits that come from developing both SW and HW and forcing carriers to play by their rules.
Having switched, Android is much better than iOS, IMO, and once you break out of the lock-in, there's little reason to go back.
So every person that Samsung knocks away from Apple, is likely a permanent loss for Apple.
I switched from an iPhone to GSIII also and my experience has been different. The bigger screen makes the drawbacks worth it to me, but I wouldn't be able to recommend the phone to everyone. IMO, the iPhone works good enough right out of the box. Android might have more potential, but it takes some work to get right.
Pros:
- Bigger screen size, screen size options
- External memory card support (kind of)
- Discounts
- Can carrier unlock
Cons:
- Google/Samsung/Carrier branded apps. My AT&T SIII came with a "Messages", "Messaging" and "Messenger" app. In addition to the "ChatON" and "Talk" apps. There's also a "Play Music" vs "Music Player" and "Email" vs "Gmail". I can imagine the support nightmares if I bought one for my parents.
- External memory card support depends on app (Ex: Spotify's current version has no support). Also, GSIII doesn't properly support ExFAT and it doesn't format an ExFAT card to FAT32 or let you know. In my case, files would disappear and there were a few 'card unreadable' errors before I did some research.
- Doesn't charge properly in computer or car USB ports. I assume this means the GSIII isn't requesting high-power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Power)
- Difficult to sync media. I don't particularly like iTunes, but it seemed to get the job done.
- Slow updates.
- Doesn't work as well with my car's Bluetooth. This may not be a Samsung issue, but iPhone tends to get more third-party testing and support because of the volume.
- Doesn't support Bluetooth Smart sensors (Bluetooth Low Energy) even though it uses the same chip as the iPhone and advertises that support.
I just bought a 30# bag of dog food online. Free two day shipping and cheaper than my local pet store.
"Last quarter we wrote a compiler that ended up being a few hundred KB of source."
A few hundred KB of CUP/lex autogenerated source... c'mon, don't let people think we're reinventing the wheel over at UCSD. =P
The fact that outsourcing occurs doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for American workers/people. It really depends on what's done with the money that's saved by moving lower-skill jobs overseas. If the extra cash is pocketed by executives, shareholders, etc., then of course it won't be too great for people. If the extra cash is used for something constructive -- research, reinvestment in infrastructure, making oneself more competitive as a business -- then the benefits do help both the country and the economy as a whole. The fact that most companies are publicly owned, for the most part, ensures that at least some, if not a lot, of the saved money will go into reinvestment. Shareholders do like money, but they also like knowing that their company won't go bankrupt with 10 year old infrastructure 10 years from now.
"Less domestic money available due to high unemployment" / "Less business coming into the company" --> Definately arguable assumptions. Workers will need to better educate themselves and can end up getting better jobs or other equivalent jobs in a healthy economy. Someone else has already mentioned that there are global companies that we are talking about, so the "less business into the company" doesn't really apply. As long as there's some money, somewhere, then the business should remain the same. If there's actually higher economic output as a result of the specialization that results from outsourcing, then there will actually be more money/opportunity for the company. The long term effect on their business is probably that they remain competitive and don't go out of business.
"Companies fail because there is no one "buying" their goods and services that they were so eager to lower the costs by foreign outsourcing" --> Has anyone actually avoided companies because of this? Have American consumers stopped buying from Dell, the number 1 computer manufacturer in the world because they outsource their customer service? I'm willing to be that most of the companies we interact with in our daily lives have and do outsource some function of their work. To argue the opposite, if companies -don't- outsource, they won't be as competitive as the companies that did. In order to cut costs to make up for this difference in labor cost, they'll cut R&D, leave employees with stagnant salaries, and in the end, harm the people it was trying to help by not outsourcing.
"There truly needs to be legislation restricting the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers" --> Isolationism has never worked as a national policy. Economics is pretty simple -- everyone does what they're best at doing. If India and China can provide low-cost labor, then they should provide low cost labor. If Americans beef up their talents and provide higher level functions -- design, management, and anything else that can be better done onsite -- then both countries stand to get a net benefit. If we took back all the jobs that have already gone overseas, we'd really be in big trouble. We'd have to go back to making car parts, making toys, growing food, and everything else no one really wants to do here. But, Yes!, that's a great idea--let's legislate to stop outsourcing, and -- don't stop there! -- let's take back all the jobs that have already been lost. It's pretty clear that outsourcing agriculture, and industry has allowed us to progress to a service-oriented country and that's not really a bad thing. When services are outsourced too, maybe we'll morph into a service-management coiuntry. No one really knows--but it's clear that isolating ourselves will be one of the worst possible things we can do.
Well, I guess I ranted for a bit, but I think that there's two sides to everything. Of course, you can't argue with people who do lose their jobs, but as a whole, I don't think this whole outsourcing this is that bad (in the long run).
These businesses may be entering a market that's already full of competition but I think the main idea is that regular people can loan small amounts of money, together effectively becoming as large a business as the existing businesses -- although the profits may be smaller, people aren't doing it for a living. Each person is giving a little, but they can effectively compete with large companies. (And losing $100 or so won't hurt the types of people who will invest money into P2P loans).
Although it might not be as large a benefit to investors, it could increase competition in an already competitive market and help borrowers to secure better loan terms. Hopefully, this could also help out people with poor credit ratings as there are more potential businesses to loan them money.
They probably censor it inside the client program like a spellchecker--so if you're in China, and you type something like "human rights violation" it can auto-correct it to "happiness". Then the word "happiness" will be encrypted and sent over the wire.
I drove through oregon awhile back from norcal...I thought it was ridiculous that I had to pay someone to pump gas for me, until I realized it was still cheaper than back home.
It seems to me like this is the typical problem with big business; big businesses can afford to buy tons of copies at once and ensure cheap prices, while small businesses get stuck with higher prices. In this case, the big businesses are the online game suppliers--it's tough to compete when they're buying it really, really cheap and don't have as much labor costs, no expensive rent, and can make up for the shipping cost by not paying tax (Correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone buys online from out of state, the government gets zero taxes right - none from consumer, none from business?) Unless there's some way to get a distinct advantage over the online/big business, you're running a losing race. Like someone mentioned with Funcoland, the only things you're really got to your advantage are environment and community: and those didn't stop people from going to Walmart instead of the mom 'n' pop stores that got run out of business. In reference to the junk games traded in for new games, you could always restrict trade-ins to used games--group games by 'value' and let them trade in within the same 'value' for nearly free, or pay money to upgrade up. A store where you could essentially buy one game, then trade it in a huge amount of time at very little cost would be appealing. In conclusiong...umm...good luck?