You have to be biased against walmart to feel that way. It's just like any other supermarket. Maybe whole foods makes you feel better because they give you the impression that what you're eating there is healthier (spoiler: It's not. I've worked for a major food distributor and we sold them the same stuff we sold walmart when they ordered the same category of items.) The only difference is whole foods refuses to carry certain foods citing health concerns (though there's no actual scientific basis behind their ban list)...
Dude, I don't know what you smoked or Kool-Aid you drank at the company you worked at, but Walmart's produce and meats look like they came from Whole Food's dumpsters.
They are also a parasitic company that moves into an area, lowers their prices to drive other retailers out of business, and then raises their prices once they have established a monopoly.
Some people place their morals above their bottom line, and that is why they are biased against Walmart.
I've forgotten enough college physics to be unable to say what the expected effect on the planet is due to the combined effects of the force of expulsion and the reduced mass of the central star on the planet's orbit should be (does it move in or out, etc).
Ah, I still remember that extremely painful integration in BC Calculus.
The planet's orbit increases due to the decrease in stellar mass: F = G M1 M2 / r^2 . (The stellar mass expanded around the planet will asymptotically cancel itself out as the mass expansion radius grows large relative to the planet's orbit.)
It's tricky to mentally model the effect of force expulsion on the planet. But if it interacted significantly with the planet, it would have forced it radially outwards with a relatively short impulse, which would result in a more elliptical orbit. It also could have induced drag on the planet's orbit during the expulsion time and the star's expansion phase, slowing the planet. But that effect would have been minimal compared to the mass reduction due to the low density of the star's outer layers.
Of course, it could also scorch the heck out of the planet's surface.
No no no, we definitely do NOT know that. Wiping out one population makes way for others that will definitely take up the niche. Those are currently being outcompeted by the existing population, but if you kill that off, that 1% remaining gets the whole thing to itself. This is what drives evolution.
So the question is, and always should be, whether or not those 1% are more benign *to us* than the 99% we currently have. Bacteria don't measure their success based on what happens to us, only what happens to them. Its very possible that the ones that are unsuccessful against other bacteria are perfectly successful in attacking us.
You have to be careful with these things, as the continual stream of stories right here on/. note. We have been putting anti-bacterial crap in everything around us, and now we are seeing the outcome of those decisions. Are we better off than in 1940? Absolutely yes. Are we better off than 1985? That is highly debatable.
You're right!
But by that logic, we should stop brushing our teeth, right?
I can't speak for everyone but I have these type features in my car (adaptive cruise, lane assist, proximity warnings, blind spot detection, etc) and I can say without a doubt for me it surely hasn't made me a better driver. I get into my other car without all of that and find myself making noob driving mistakes (not checking blind spots, not keeping consistent speed, much longer parallel parking, etc). It's actually kind of unnerving at how fast I came to rely on the car to do these tasks for me.
I haven't seen any studies so maybe I'm just a goof but I consciously try not to rely on those things because I don't want to forget how to actually drive.
Maybe the cars with these advanced sensors need to condition their drivers to prevent this loss of awareness.
Every time your car catches you doing something wrong, it should not only alert you, but also electrically shock you!
Having driven on the autobahn it's probably the easiest place to try something like this. Everyone there already moves like robots. It's like some lawmakers figured out an "API" for how to communicate between vehicles.
I want to see it done around Chicago where it's "surprise, I'm coming into your lane".
Or Boston, where the only way to change lanes is to pretend that you're driving drunk, so that everyone will back off!
Making them be at school at 7 AM is not good. Your point that it was made for the convenience of the working parents is quite true, but doesn't make it any better physically for the kids.
I just want to point out that THIS working parent also doesn't like being at work at 7AM!
Pretty much this. I've been confused as to why this was an issue ever since it was. The navy *HATES* to go active on sonar, as it instantly gives away your position at a distance far longer than you'll get any information back. Active sonar is reserved for localizing a target that's close-in immediately before firing a torpedo, and often not even then. They also have a special high-frequency sonar specifically for under-ice operations. But for general searching in the open ocean? It's all passive. (My dad was a sonar guy almost his entire 20; starting out in GUPPYs all the way up through 688s.)
If you read the article, (I know, I know...) you would have learned that the Navy uses active sonar and explosives during training exercises to practice combat tactics.
(You probably could have also figured this out yourself since you appear to be a pro at sonar.)
So yes, you would use passive detection techniques hunting another sub, and then switch to active sonar just before firing a simulated torpedo at a simulated target. This is why they are only limiting their use near Hawaii and the US coast... because we generally don't do a lot of sub attacks in that region. However, when the Navy is training, they generally like to do it in a safe area that will not alarm other countries and where they can respond to accidents quickly... which is why they were doing it near the US coast.
Smart motivated kids like this become terrorists when you alienate them from your society for doing something they are proud of... like showing off their cool, benign project.
I love the police chief's refusal to admit any mistake as well: '“We live in an age where you can’t take things like that to school,” he said. “Of course we’ve seen across our country horrific things happen, so we have to err on the side of caution.”'
This kind of stuff is the reason I never re-use passwords across services. All my passwords are randomly generated and stored by KeePass. Sure, it's a little less convenient to have to unlock the password safe in order to get into services, rather than just type in something you've already memorized. But, it's the only way to be sure that having your password compromised on one service won't compromise an account on another service. Even if the service isn't externally compromised, there's probably a lot of systems out there where employees (DB administrators, programmers) can gain access to the passwords from various methods such as logs or unaudited code.
I think this whole password fiasco has gotten super fucking complicated for a normal human being.
When you need a password manager application to tell you what to type into the computer, we might as well all just switch to a tokencard system.
Or better yet, write you passwords down on a card in you wallet. Write you login names down on your password-protected phone. Problem solved. Go ahead and try to hack that system remotely.
I'm not using an app right now. It's extremely easy for me to just go to a competing site if you don't want donations or paywalls.
There are very few sites that will publish content out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can't get paid through advertising, then it's apps or paywalls or something but not free.
Don't get me wrong; I use adblock and never see ads. So I guess I'm a hyopcrite. But if online advertising can't unltimately make money somehow we're gonna have a very different web on our hands.
Like it would really matter if 90% of the advertisement-supported web disappeared.
Where would we be?
Back to the newsgroups that we had originally... which arguably was better than the highly predatory environment that it's evolved into today.
It's better to be alive and hated by all motorists than it is to be dead.
But it's even better to be alive and liked by all motorists!
A lot of the cyclist hate is driven by cyclists and motorists driving around with a mentality they are at war with each other. If everyone just treated the other as they would prefer to be treated, things would go a lot smoother. Instead, things escalate because of mistakes on both sides:
Tailgating a cyclist in your pickup just to be a dick? Fail. Cycling uphill in the middle of a 55 MPH lane at 15 mph just to be a dick? Fail.
Not passing a cyclist with enough space to show him who's boss? Fail. Not moving over to let a motorist by who has been stuck behind you for a mile? Fail.
You get my point...? It goes both ways. When you get locked in to one mentality, you just alienate others against your cause.
We could also easily extend this to pedestrians. Sadly, there's been a general loss of respect and politeness in public amongst humans over the past 20 years.
The F-35 IS expensive _per_unit_. The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs. So the A-10 sits on the ground while there is air-to-air taking place, waiting while another aircraft handles that. IF the F-35 does four different roles, replacing four different types of aircraft, that cuts the effective cost by 75%. It wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies. It could, supposedly, when the skies while also bombing enemy airfields , then do close air support.
Let's see how it actually does in testing before we declare the result.
The thing is, the US has never fought a war where it did not need close air support. Ever.
So having a dedicated aircraft for this role seems like a really good idea. Especially when it is 1/8th the projected cost of the F-35.
Beyond that, it's an arms race. You can't hold someone responsible for being hacked, unless they've demonstrated that they didn't even try to avoid it. Reasonable preventative measures.
That's not really true.
Reasonable preventative measures include not saving unnecessary information like (1) credit cards, (2) home addresses, (3) full names for a site that only exists for a form of social networking.
Extreme preventative measures include not keeping any electronic transaction records, instead only saving printouts of data.
Both approaches would be expected for an online business that makes its profit from anonymity.
Did you notice the awesome shot of our atmosphere in that photo, and how thin it looks. Reminds of this visualisation. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
It looks pretty thick to me. It's as big as Betelgeuse in that picture!
Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane? It's like saying my car sucks because I can't use a crank to start the engine like the old cars could.
A fighter's raison d'etre is dogfighting.
With the development of cruise missiles, drones, and long-standoff munitions, fighters are less relevant for air-to-ground use today when going up against an adversary with limited capability. But the US needs fighters to be able to maintain air superiority in any situation. Just because all of the US's latest mid-east engagements have not involved an air superiority struggle, doesn't mean that a future conflict will not... especially if it involves a Russian or Chinese supplied country with actual competitive weaponry.
You're also missing the main point of these weapons, which is that their implied threat is their most effective capability. If the fighter is known to be superior to all others, countries will prefer not to engage it or will waste lots of resources developing their own similarly capable fighters.
I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.
It is muckraking.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent. This happens a lot in government emails as situations evolve and when it does, recommended procedure is to clean up what you can and not discuss the issue any further on the low side. This is a dangerous game that the Republicans are playing because politicians on both sides likely have (retroactively) classified information that was once emailed as unclassified. (You wouldn't, for example, post new releases saying that her emails had classified email... like is currently happening!) What server is was stored on is irrelevant if it was emailed over an open network. It's not like government servers are specially protected in a magical way anyway... look at the recent Office of Personnel Management breech.
Frankly, if you want to be mad at the Democrats, be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
It's interesting that all of the well-publicized national security breeches seem happen just before presidential elections!
Let's keep this in perspective. If the hack requires you to physically attach dongles to the vehicle, the hacker could just as easily attach a remote controlled bomb.
I think this is a case of "Blame the dead guy, because he can't defend himself."
I cannot believe that an experienced test pilot, in his right mind, would not have thought through the possible consequences of actuating that lever at a higher speed than it was designed for. I simply cannot believe it. Especially given than history is littered with examples of airplanes not being able to pull out of dives due to control surfaces not responding properly (or ripping off) in supersonic or transonic flow. Alsbury would have been intensely aware of these concepts.
I think that it is more likely that that, if he actually did pull the lever, Alsbury was disoriented or mentally compromised due to some other factor.
The first thing any engineer (in any discipline) needs to learn when starting a real job is "the vendor is a lying bastard". I think it will work out substantially cheaper in the long run to test every strut rather than to go crazy with the material specification. Accept the universal truth that the vendor is a lying bastard, test as needed, and get on with life. If SpaceX ever reaches their reusability goal, the cost of all the testing will be spread across many flights anyway.
The second thing any engineer needs to learn is cost-benefit analysis:
1. I always choose the lowest bidding vendor, and he is always a lying bastard who can't deliver on spec, on time, or on budget. 2. Testing every part or losing rockets costs a lot of money than I saved on the lowest bidder. 3. Maybe I should vet my bids more carefully with plant visits, spot checks, and intermittent testing. Then choose the best vendor and not be cheapest one.
This approach will end up saving you money with high-visibility, low-volume projects.
Yeah, it'll make junk from Wal-Mart suddenly expensive. I can't say I'm upset about that.
And there's the guy who doesn't have any idea what happens when the poor and middle class that would be directly impacted in more than one country. Suddenly it costs more for things in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia. Suddenly, everyone but the rich and ultra rich are now struggling, and no longer buying items but rather scraping by after paying for basic necessities. Well tell me what happens when growth in the economy comes to a screeching halt because people aren't buying anything?
You're missing the GP's point but not performing a very nuanced analysis of the issue.
Walmart intentionally puts local vendors out of business with its aggressive pricing and huge margins. They are able to do this by sourcing all of their products from China. Effectively, large businesses like Walmart have fostered the globalization that has hurt the poor and middle class people of US, Canada, and Europe though loss of jobs to (lower wage companies) in Asia.
Thus, an increase in the cost of Chinese products could be good in the long term for those affected countries, if they can now compete with China. This would translate to more jobs and profits for the lower and middle classes that you argue would be adversely impacted.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be biased against walmart to feel that way. It's just like any other supermarket. Maybe whole foods makes you feel better because they give you the impression that what you're eating there is healthier (spoiler: It's not. I've worked for a major food distributor and we sold them the same stuff we sold walmart when they ordered the same category of items.) The only difference is whole foods refuses to carry certain foods citing health concerns (though there's no actual scientific basis behind their ban list) ...
Dude, I don't know what you smoked or Kool-Aid you drank at the company you worked at, but Walmart's produce and meats look like they came from Whole Food's dumpsters.
They are also a parasitic company that moves into an area, lowers their prices to drive other retailers out of business, and then raises their prices once they have established a monopoly.
Some people place their morals above their bottom line, and that is why they are biased against Walmart.
I've forgotten enough college physics to be unable to say what the expected effect on the planet is due to the combined effects of the force of expulsion and the reduced mass of the central star on the planet's orbit should be (does it move in or out, etc).
Ah, I still remember that extremely painful integration in BC Calculus.
The planet's orbit increases due to the decrease in stellar mass: F = G M1 M2 / r^2 . (The stellar mass expanded around the planet will asymptotically cancel itself out as the mass expansion radius grows large relative to the planet's orbit.)
It's tricky to mentally model the effect of force expulsion on the planet. But if it interacted significantly with the planet, it would have forced it radially outwards with a relatively short impulse, which would result in a more elliptical orbit. It also could have induced drag on the planet's orbit during the expulsion time and the star's expansion phase, slowing the planet. But that effect would have been minimal compared to the mass reduction due to the low density of the star's outer layers.
Of course, it could also scorch the heck out of the planet's surface.
I meant "ever before" I got my Ph.D. Did I mention I was a Scientist? With a Ph.D.?
Did you publish your PhD anonymously like your /. posts?
If so, that must make tracking your citations a real bitch.
> It's still better than the alternative.
No no no, we definitely do NOT know that. Wiping out one population makes way for others that will definitely take up the niche. Those are currently being outcompeted by the existing population, but if you kill that off, that 1% remaining gets the whole thing to itself. This is what drives evolution.
So the question is, and always should be, whether or not those 1% are more benign *to us* than the 99% we currently have. Bacteria don't measure their success based on what happens to us, only what happens to them. Its very possible that the ones that are unsuccessful against other bacteria are perfectly successful in attacking us.
You have to be careful with these things, as the continual stream of stories right here on /. note. We have been putting anti-bacterial crap in everything around us, and now we are seeing the outcome of those decisions. Are we better off than in 1940? Absolutely yes. Are we better off than 1985? That is highly debatable.
You're right!
But by that logic, we should stop brushing our teeth, right?
I can't speak for everyone but I have these type features in my car (adaptive cruise, lane assist, proximity warnings, blind spot detection, etc) and I can say without a doubt for me it surely hasn't made me a better driver. I get into my other car without all of that and find myself making noob driving mistakes (not checking blind spots, not keeping consistent speed, much longer parallel parking, etc). It's actually kind of unnerving at how fast I came to rely on the car to do these tasks for me.
I haven't seen any studies so maybe I'm just a goof but I consciously try not to rely on those things because I don't want to forget how to actually drive.
Maybe the cars with these advanced sensors need to condition their drivers to prevent this loss of awareness.
Every time your car catches you doing something wrong, it should not only alert you, but also electrically shock you!
It really seems to help them self-propagate.
In fact, I'd rather have less TSA security at the airport and more stringent laws about reporting on mass shootings (and drug commercials too)!
Having driven on the autobahn it's probably the easiest place to try something like this. Everyone there already moves like robots. It's like some lawmakers figured out an "API" for how to communicate between vehicles.
I want to see it done around Chicago where it's "surprise, I'm coming into your lane".
Or Boston, where the only way to change lanes is to pretend that you're driving drunk, so that everyone will back off!
Making them be at school at 7 AM is not good. Your point that it was made for the convenience of the working parents is quite true, but doesn't make it any better physically for the kids.
I just want to point out that THIS working parent also doesn't like being at work at 7AM!
Pretty much this. I've been confused as to why this was an issue ever since it was. The navy *HATES* to go active on sonar, as it instantly gives away your position at a distance far longer than you'll get any information back. Active sonar is reserved for localizing a target that's close-in immediately before firing a torpedo, and often not even then. They also have a special high-frequency sonar specifically for under-ice operations. But for general searching in the open ocean? It's all passive. (My dad was a sonar guy almost his entire 20; starting out in GUPPYs all the way up through 688s.)
If you read the article, (I know, I know...) you would have learned that the Navy uses active sonar and explosives during training exercises to practice combat tactics.
(You probably could have also figured this out yourself since you appear to be a pro at sonar.)
So yes, you would use passive detection techniques hunting another sub, and then switch to active sonar just before firing a simulated torpedo at a simulated target. This is why they are only limiting their use near Hawaii and the US coast... because we generally don't do a lot of sub attacks in that region. However, when the Navy is training, they generally like to do it in a safe area that will not alarm other countries and where they can respond to accidents quickly... which is why they were doing it near the US coast.
Smart motivated kids like this become terrorists when you alienate them from your society for doing something they are proud of... like showing off their cool, benign project.
I love the police chief's refusal to admit any mistake as well:
'“We live in an age where you can’t take things like that to school,” he said. “Of course we’ve seen across our country horrific things happen, so we have to err on the side of caution.”'
Well heck, let's just stop going to school.
Idiots.
Use an airgun, don't get arrested.
This kind of stuff is the reason I never re-use passwords across services. All my passwords are randomly generated and stored by KeePass. Sure, it's a little less convenient to have to unlock the password safe in order to get into services, rather than just type in something you've already memorized. But, it's the only way to be sure that having your password compromised on one service won't compromise an account on another service. Even if the service isn't externally compromised, there's probably a lot of systems out there where employees (DB administrators, programmers) can gain access to the passwords from various methods such as logs or unaudited code.
I think this whole password fiasco has gotten super fucking complicated for a normal human being.
When you need a password manager application to tell you what to type into the computer, we might as well all just switch to a tokencard system.
Or better yet, write you passwords down on a card in you wallet. Write you login names down on your password-protected phone. Problem solved. Go ahead and try to hack that system remotely.
I'm not using an app right now. It's extremely easy for me to just go to a competing site if you don't want donations or paywalls.
There are very few sites that will publish content out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can't get paid through advertising, then it's apps or paywalls or something but not free.
Don't get me wrong; I use adblock and never see ads. So I guess I'm a hyopcrite. But if online advertising can't unltimately make money somehow we're gonna have a very different web on our hands.
Like it would really matter if 90% of the advertisement-supported web disappeared.
Where would we be?
Back to the newsgroups that we had originally... which arguably was better than the highly predatory environment that it's evolved into today.
It's better to be alive and hated by all motorists than it is to be dead.
But it's even better to be alive and liked by all motorists!
A lot of the cyclist hate is driven by cyclists and motorists driving around with a mentality they are at war with each other. If everyone just treated the other as they would prefer to be treated, things would go a lot smoother. Instead, things escalate because of mistakes on both sides:
Tailgating a cyclist in your pickup just to be a dick? Fail. Cycling uphill in the middle of a 55 MPH lane at 15 mph just to be a dick? Fail.
Not passing a cyclist with enough space to show him who's boss? Fail. Not moving over to let a motorist by who has been stuck behind you for a mile? Fail.
You get my point...? It goes both ways. When you get locked in to one mentality, you just alienate others against your cause.
We could also easily extend this to pedestrians. Sadly, there's been a general loss of respect and politeness in public amongst humans over the past 20 years.
The F-35 IS expensive _per_unit_. The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs. So the A-10 sits on the ground while there is air-to-air taking place, waiting while another aircraft handles that. IF the F-35 does four different roles, replacing four different types of aircraft, that cuts the effective cost by 75%. It wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies. It could, supposedly, when the skies while also bombing enemy airfields , then do close air support.
Let's see how it actually does in testing before we declare the result.
The thing is, the US has never fought a war where it did not need close air support. Ever.
So having a dedicated aircraft for this role seems like a really good idea. Especially when it is 1/8th the projected cost of the F-35.
I would say roughly 1 AU, but it varies with the elliptical orbit of the earth.
Beyond that, it's an arms race. You can't hold someone responsible for being hacked, unless they've demonstrated that they didn't even try to avoid it. Reasonable preventative measures.
That's not really true.
Reasonable preventative measures include not saving unnecessary information like (1) credit cards, (2) home addresses, (3) full names for a site that only exists for a form of social networking.
Extreme preventative measures include not keeping any electronic transaction records, instead only saving printouts of data.
Both approaches would be expected for an online business that makes its profit from anonymity.
Did you notice the awesome shot of our atmosphere in that photo, and how thin it looks.
Reminds of this visualisation.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
It looks pretty thick to me. It's as big as Betelgeuse in that picture!
Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?
It's like saying my car sucks because I can't use a crank to start the engine like the old cars could.
A fighter's raison d'etre is dogfighting.
With the development of cruise missiles, drones, and long-standoff munitions, fighters are less relevant for air-to-ground use today when going up against an adversary with limited capability. But the US needs fighters to be able to maintain air superiority in any situation. Just because all of the US's latest mid-east engagements have not involved an air superiority struggle, doesn't mean that a future conflict will not... especially if it involves a Russian or Chinese supplied country with actual competitive weaponry.
You're also missing the main point of these weapons, which is that their implied threat is their most effective capability. If the fighter is known to be superior to all others, countries will prefer not to engage it or will waste lots of resources developing their own similarly capable fighters.
I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.
It is muckraking.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent. This happens a lot in government emails as situations evolve and when it does, recommended procedure is to clean up what you can and not discuss the issue any further on the low side. This is a dangerous game that the Republicans are playing because politicians on both sides likely have (retroactively) classified information that was once emailed as unclassified. (You wouldn't, for example, post new releases saying that her emails had classified email... like is currently happening!) What server is was stored on is irrelevant if it was emailed over an open network. It's not like government servers are specially protected in a magical way anyway... look at the recent Office of Personnel Management breech.
Frankly, if you want to be mad at the Democrats, be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
It's interesting that all of the well-publicized national security breeches seem happen just before presidential elections!
Let's keep this in perspective. If the hack requires you to physically attach dongles to the vehicle, the hacker could just as easily attach a remote controlled bomb.
I think this is a case of "Blame the dead guy, because he can't defend himself."
I cannot believe that an experienced test pilot, in his right mind, would not have thought through the possible consequences of actuating that lever at a higher speed than it was designed for. I simply cannot believe it. Especially given than history is littered with examples of airplanes not being able to pull out of dives due to control surfaces not responding properly (or ripping off) in supersonic or transonic flow. Alsbury would have been intensely aware of these concepts.
I think that it is more likely that that, if he actually did pull the lever, Alsbury was disoriented or mentally compromised due to some other factor.
The first thing any engineer (in any discipline) needs to learn when starting a real job is "the vendor is a lying bastard". I think it will work out substantially cheaper in the long run to test every strut rather than to go crazy with the material specification. Accept the universal truth that the vendor is a lying bastard, test as needed, and get on with life. If SpaceX ever reaches their reusability goal, the cost of all the testing will be spread across many flights anyway.
The second thing any engineer needs to learn is cost-benefit analysis:
1. I always choose the lowest bidding vendor, and he is always a lying bastard who can't deliver on spec, on time, or on budget.
2. Testing every part or losing rockets costs a lot of money than I saved on the lowest bidder.
3. Maybe I should vet my bids more carefully with plant visits, spot checks, and intermittent testing. Then choose the best vendor and not be cheapest one.
This approach will end up saving you money with high-visibility, low-volume projects.
This will be great!
My studded snow tires will get much better grip on plastic and ice, than rock and ice in the winter. And they'll wear less!
Yeah, it'll make junk from Wal-Mart suddenly expensive. I can't say I'm upset about that.
And there's the guy who doesn't have any idea what happens when the poor and middle class that would be directly impacted in more than one country. Suddenly it costs more for things in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia. Suddenly, everyone but the rich and ultra rich are now struggling, and no longer buying items but rather scraping by after paying for basic necessities. Well tell me what happens when growth in the economy comes to a screeching halt because people aren't buying anything?
You're missing the GP's point but not performing a very nuanced analysis of the issue.
Walmart intentionally puts local vendors out of business with its aggressive pricing and huge margins. They are able to do this by sourcing all of their products from China. Effectively, large businesses like Walmart have fostered the globalization that has hurt the poor and middle class people of US, Canada, and Europe though loss of jobs to (lower wage companies) in Asia.
Thus, an increase in the cost of Chinese products could be good in the long term for those affected countries, if they can now compete with China. This would translate to more jobs and profits for the lower and middle classes that you argue would be adversely impacted.