My math isn't wrong, I said made $20k a year, not change his salary to $20k a year. That would mean removing stock options, and extra shares of stock, bonuses, etc. However, so your complaint is that there are people who are doing better than you? Yeah, cry me a river.
No, I am not suggesting that because it isn't that simple. I'm going to try and put this in a way that hopefully you will understand (with my very limited knowledge of lawyering, and I'll assume you are a lawyer based on your name). Presenting a case in trial should be free, because I have the choice of multiple lawyers, and it costs absolutely nothing to talk in front of a judge and in some cases you can get a public defender which is free. That doesn't happen for the same reasons drugs that cost $1 to manufacture aren't cheaper. Now this is the point where you step in and tell me all the reasons why you charge for your services, why it isn't free, why you cost more than the public defender...
As for drug companies, you can't make a pill for $1. You can't make a single pill for $1,000, or even $10,000. You can however, possibly make a million pills for 1 million dollars. There are set up fees, and QA testing, drug testing, packaging (and testing), and... so on and so on that all must go through the FDA. Even generic drugs. You have to prove that the delivery system is the same, at the same dosage, and delivers the active ingredients at the same rate as another generic, or the brand name product. You have to prove your manufacturing process is within a given tolerance (not every pill has the EXACT same quantity of active ingredient, even for brand name drugs). Then you have to market it, sign agreements with warehouses, and packaging companies, and eventually someone to put it where people can actually buy it.
So no, if it costs $2m to get all that stuff done, and then x% after that goes to other expenses, if you can only sell 10,000 pills per year, you will not make a killing at selling them for $20 each. It is complicated, and it is a long process (even when lawyers don't get involved), and there is significant risk in trying to bring even a generic drug to market, but there is so much "profit" to be made, then why don't you go do it yourself and become a bajillionaire?
So if Edward M. Kaye made something you think is more reasonable, like...$20,000 a year ($10/hr), and your $50k drug is now let's see... (($4,396,696 - $20,000) / 7,100,000,000) is $0.0006, so it's now $49,999.9994 then you'll be happy?
On the other hand, if it wasn't for those for those paying $50k in the US, there wouldn't be a drug AT ALL. The reason it is $1k in India and $50k in the US is because of that's how it is set up to maximize the return on investment. The drug companies are simply selling the drug at whatever will make them the most money, and because of the way the insurances work in the US, there are a lot of people who can get that drug at $50k. They would make a lot less money if they sold it for $1k in the US (demand won't grow 50x). Yet if they sold it for $2k in India, they would likely sell less than half of what they do at $1k.
But your first statement is correct, it isn't a completely free market. It's a limited free market (within the US), and then limited by law (must have FDA approval), and restricted by patents. I would love to hear about a better way, but I've yet to hear one that would actually work. Most of the great "fixes" aren't well thought out and would fall apart.
Sounds like you need a quick class on economics, because "If the free market is not allowed to work, and instead there is price gouging going on" are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, a free market is pretty much required for price gouging to go on. You are only focused on one half of the equation (more competitors usually means lower prices), vs the other side which is anyone doing selling can (and almost always will) sell to make the most amount of profit, not necessarily the highest quantity.
Of course it's a moving target. Same as anything technology based. Today's best is tomorrow's slow. Having driven muscle cars/pony cars for most of my life (and now a real sports car), it's easy to watch. They are ahead of the sport sedans by about 7-8 years. Although, with the muscle cars hitting 660+ HP (707 for the hellcat), I wonder if the sedan will catch up in 7-8 years, as there really isn't much of a need. Time will tell though.
Not sure what your definition of a sports car is, but it isn't what the rest of the world's is. Even Cadillac doesn't call the CTS-V a sports car. They call it what it is. A sedan designed for the track. So according to you, a sports car doesn't need to have only 2 seats, and it doesn't necessarily need to be able to handle well. It also doesn't need to go fast. I guess if you consider any car that can accelerate fast, then yes, there are a ton of "sports cars" out there.
Most of us will continue to call them what they are: Sport sedans. There is nothing wrong with a sport sedan, but they sacrifice handling and performance to get you the things that aren't necessary for a sports car. If the CTS-V was designed to be a sports car, they would have thrown out 2 seats, 2 doors, replaced steel with aluminum and carbon fiber, shortened the wheelbase, and shaved some glass thickness, etc, but they didn't -- so it's a 4100 lbs sport sedan rather than a 3200 lbs sports car.
I didn't say the line could be measured only by lateral grip. A sports car with sub-par grip isn't a sports car though. Common definitions of sports cars are "A sports car (or sportscar) is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling." and "especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds." Another definition would be a two seater automobile with nimble handling and a soft-top.
Note that all of those refer to handling. It's not the only requirement, but it is one of them, and until batteries get lighter, or someone figures out how to rewrite physics, the extra mass of the batteries will always make them sub-par at handling.
Flash was frequently used for ads because of adobes suite which allowed "creatives" in advertising with no knowledge of programming to make advertisements. Of course with no knowledge of programming, they designed really bad ads that were in your face, broke good UI design, and sucked up every last resource in your PC (also killing battery life).
The same thing will repeat itself in HTML 5, and will speed up as more software is written to produce ads in pure HTML 5 (probably from adobe again). Adobe has some stuff, but last I checked, it was pretty far away from being as polished as the flash stuff (tweens animations, timelines, etc).
Quickly sidestepping the fact that the RS7 isn't a real sports car, it's a "sporty" car, it DOES have handling issues as evidenced by skid pad testing: 1990 camero/firebird - 0.87 (pony car) 2016 Tesla Model S - 0.89 (electric sedan) 2017 Audi RS7 - 0.95 (sports sedan) 2014 Corvette Stingray - 1.11 (sports car) 2016 Corvette Z06 - 1.20 (sports car)
It is going to be a while (a long while) before you start seeing electric sports cars with any decent range. The problem is the batteries. Batteries are still extremely heavy, which makes trying to make an electric version really difficult that handles at the same level as a gas electric car. Sure, you can make it look sporty, but it'll still have handing issues that gas cars don't have to deal with.
For example, a new corvette stingray is ~3200 pounds, while a tesla model S is ~4800 pounds. That extra 50% mass hurts when you are trying to change directions.
I for one was saddened by the fact that Microsoft caved on the issue. There was a lot of FUD floating around that time about what you could and couldn't do, most of it just lies.
It was never "always on". It had to be online once every 24 hours (or 1 hour if you were accessing your library from a remote console) both of those were part of the very first announcement. There was never a ban on reselling used games, even from the day 1 announcement. The idea was that you could sell the used game, turn it back into a digital code that then you could transfer or sell to anyone. With that code you could install the game and play just like how you originally could. Yes, there was some talk about publishers being able to limit it resells to one time only, but that was up to the publishers to enable or not.
Now we just have it worse in every respect. Publishers can still limit resell by tying purchased to accounts, and you can't share your library or use it remotely at all.
A lot of theaters around here have changed. They aren't the old 90's movies theaters any more (yay!). They serve restaurant quality food, have the "dial-a-soda" machines so you can get your half cherry diet something half orange diet something if you want. The theaters have reclining sofa-ish leather chairs arranged in pairs. The food is brought to you in the theater, and you book your seat at the time you purchase your tickets.
This really solves most of my complaints about going to the local theater. No long lines -- EVER. Walk straight from the parking lot to my seat in the theater (ok, well, stop to order food, scan my phone/cc to get the tickets), then walk to theater. Comfy seats actually better than what I have at home (Yeah, I need to replace my sofa), and food that is quite good and neither me or my wife have to do the dishes afterwards. Now the only complaint is the price, but it's one I'm willing to pay for a good movie experience. The theaters are smaller, but the screen size hasn't shrunk by as much (the screens are practically wall to wall. I think the theater owners (AMC) have done a pretty good job of listening.
I suggest you stop trying to fit the average person into a high-end pickup truck and something more like what people in any other (sane) country drives. You get get good cars for under $20k with some really really nice features.
Most baby boomers don't have their retirement in stocks anymore -- any decent financial manager would have converted the bulk into more stable investments long ago.
Not the original poster, but social justice warrior is someone who takes a look at something and defines it in terms of social injustice, almost always without looking at it very deeply, and feels the compulsion to fix that injustice no matter the cost.
For example: A company has 5 entry level workers, we'll call them A,B,C,D,and E. A (male with 10 years experience, and the best worker) gets paid $15/hr, B and C (one male one female each with 8 years experience) $14 and hour, D (3 years experience) is paid $13 and hour, and E (15 years experience, but mentally retarded) is paid $10 an hour. The SJW boss comes in and "fixes" the social injustice (C was female and should be paid equal pay, D was discriminated by age or whatever the latest fad is, E should be paid just as much because they have the same job regardless of productivity) by taking the average $13.20. Feeling awesome at fixing this social injustice he goes and celebrates. 2 weeks later, employee A leaves the company because a competitor gave him a raise to $20 an hour as he was been grossly underpaid given his skills. A couple weeks after being overworked, employees B & C leave the company because they can't keep up with the workload now that A has left, and they can't perform at the level he was. The company is now left with one employee who is just out of college has no industry experience and continues to make mistakes that A, B, or C never would have. The company while trying to find replacements for A, B and C can't find any except new college graduates. Product quality suffers, quantity production is in the toilet, and a month later the company goes bankrupt. Employee D loaded with college debt, takes the first job he finds at $12 an hour, and Employee E is out of work, back on social programs, and lives the life as a hermit in their 10'x10' apartment.
SJW moves on to the next company, touting how awesome of a job he did at his previous employer right before they went out of business.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what a SJW is -- looking for social injustices, finding them where they don't really exist, and fighting to get the fixed, no matter the cost or if they should be.
Except most RAID controllers also have things like patrolling reads (bad sectors) and consistency checks (mismatched data/bitrot) to catch these types of issues. Granted, it's not a function of RAID itself, but most decent implementations include them.
Me, but the card is hardly obsolete in a year or two. I'll upgrade my main machine's video card every 2-3 years, and then swap it's old card to my secondary machine (Development box and server), which then moves it's old video card to a third machine. Sometimes my secondary machine doesn't need the upgrade, in which case it goes up on eBay for $200-$400. Which then turns the purchase into either 3 upgrades every 2-3 years for $700, or $300-$500 every 2-3 years if I eBay the old card.
Why would you buy a console whose video card and CPU are obsolete a year before you even buy it?
To avoid the security issue of chrome on linux, I suggest you switch to internet explorer. I haven't heard of any exploits of internet explorer on linux yet.
2. You do not need to "consult a lawyer" to know what is legal and illegal.
Really? You have every law ever written memorized and every prescident ever ruled on? And you did this without 4 years in law school and 10 more years researching? That is impressive. More likely you are just extremely naive.
How and what you do is more often than not legal or illegal depending on how it is applied and where. No way in hell could any programmer writing code ever do anything productive if we had to research the ramifications of every change we are told to make and try to apply it to every jurisdiction on the planet and then write a 100 page paper outlining all the ways in which such change could possibly be used for "evil".
But since I have you here, and you are such a law expert, which LAW exactly is it that you believe that Vizio broke by sending back telemetry on it's application usage? Just to make it simple, I'll let you assume the jurisdiction is the United States.
"My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense.
What? As a programmer, you expect *ME* to consult a lawyer for everything I'm told to do, and then follow up with the manufacturing to make sure they actually deliver whatever privacy notice may be required? Lol.
Slashdot Mirror
My math isn't wrong, I said made $20k a year, not change his salary to $20k a year. That would mean removing stock options, and extra shares of stock, bonuses, etc. However, so your complaint is that there are people who are doing better than you? Yeah, cry me a river.
No, I am not suggesting that because it isn't that simple. I'm going to try and put this in a way that hopefully you will understand (with my very limited knowledge of lawyering, and I'll assume you are a lawyer based on your name). Presenting a case in trial should be free, because I have the choice of multiple lawyers, and it costs absolutely nothing to talk in front of a judge and in some cases you can get a public defender which is free. That doesn't happen for the same reasons drugs that cost $1 to manufacture aren't cheaper. Now this is the point where you step in and tell me all the reasons why you charge for your services, why it isn't free, why you cost more than the public defender...
As for drug companies, you can't make a pill for $1. You can't make a single pill for $1,000, or even $10,000. You can however, possibly make a million pills for 1 million dollars. There are set up fees, and QA testing, drug testing, packaging (and testing), and... so on and so on that all must go through the FDA. Even generic drugs. You have to prove that the delivery system is the same, at the same dosage, and delivers the active ingredients at the same rate as another generic, or the brand name product. You have to prove your manufacturing process is within a given tolerance (not every pill has the EXACT same quantity of active ingredient, even for brand name drugs). Then you have to market it, sign agreements with warehouses, and packaging companies, and eventually someone to put it where people can actually buy it.
So no, if it costs $2m to get all that stuff done, and then x% after that goes to other expenses, if you can only sell 10,000 pills per year, you will not make a killing at selling them for $20 each. It is complicated, and it is a long process (even when lawyers don't get involved), and there is significant risk in trying to bring even a generic drug to market, but there is so much "profit" to be made, then why don't you go do it yourself and become a bajillionaire?
So if Edward M. Kaye made something you think is more reasonable, like...$20,000 a year ($10/hr), and your $50k drug is now let's see... (($4,396,696 - $20,000) / 7,100,000,000) is $0.0006, so it's now $49,999.9994 then you'll be happy?
On the other hand, if it wasn't for those for those paying $50k in the US, there wouldn't be a drug AT ALL. The reason it is $1k in India and $50k in the US is because of that's how it is set up to maximize the return on investment. The drug companies are simply selling the drug at whatever will make them the most money, and because of the way the insurances work in the US, there are a lot of people who can get that drug at $50k. They would make a lot less money if they sold it for $1k in the US (demand won't grow 50x). Yet if they sold it for $2k in India, they would likely sell less than half of what they do at $1k.
But your first statement is correct, it isn't a completely free market. It's a limited free market (within the US), and then limited by law (must have FDA approval), and restricted by patents. I would love to hear about a better way, but I've yet to hear one that would actually work. Most of the great "fixes" aren't well thought out and would fall apart.
Sounds like you need a quick class on economics, because "If the free market is not allowed to work, and instead there is price gouging going on" are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, a free market is pretty much required for price gouging to go on. You are only focused on one half of the equation (more competitors usually means lower prices), vs the other side which is anyone doing selling can (and almost always will) sell to make the most amount of profit, not necessarily the highest quantity.
Of course it's a moving target. Same as anything technology based. Today's best is tomorrow's slow. Having driven muscle cars/pony cars for most of my life (and now a real sports car), it's easy to watch. They are ahead of the sport sedans by about 7-8 years. Although, with the muscle cars hitting 660+ HP (707 for the hellcat), I wonder if the sedan will catch up in 7-8 years, as there really isn't much of a need. Time will tell though.
Not sure what your definition of a sports car is, but it isn't what the rest of the world's is. Even Cadillac doesn't call the CTS-V a sports car. They call it what it is. A sedan designed for the track. So according to you, a sports car doesn't need to have only 2 seats, and it doesn't necessarily need to be able to handle well. It also doesn't need to go fast. I guess if you consider any car that can accelerate fast, then yes, there are a ton of "sports cars" out there.
Most of us will continue to call them what they are: Sport sedans. There is nothing wrong with a sport sedan, but they sacrifice handling and performance to get you the things that aren't necessary for a sports car. If the CTS-V was designed to be a sports car, they would have thrown out 2 seats, 2 doors, replaced steel with aluminum and carbon fiber, shortened the wheelbase, and shaved some glass thickness, etc, but they didn't -- so it's a 4100 lbs sport sedan rather than a 3200 lbs sports car.
I didn't say the line could be measured only by lateral grip. A sports car with sub-par grip isn't a sports car though. Common definitions of sports cars are "A sports car (or sportscar) is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling." and "especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds." Another definition would be a two seater automobile with nimble handling and a soft-top.
Note that all of those refer to handling. It's not the only requirement, but it is one of them, and until batteries get lighter, or someone figures out how to rewrite physics, the extra mass of the batteries will always make them sub-par at handling.
Depends on how many library congresses worth of DVDs you need to move to China.
Flash was frequently used for ads because of adobes suite which allowed "creatives" in advertising with no knowledge of programming to make advertisements. Of course with no knowledge of programming, they designed really bad ads that were in your face, broke good UI design, and sucked up every last resource in your PC (also killing battery life).
The same thing will repeat itself in HTML 5, and will speed up as more software is written to produce ads in pure HTML 5 (probably from adobe again). Adobe has some stuff, but last I checked, it was pretty far away from being as polished as the flash stuff (tweens animations, timelines, etc).
Quickly sidestepping the fact that the RS7 isn't a real sports car, it's a "sporty" car, it DOES have handling issues as evidenced by skid pad testing:
1990 camero/firebird - 0.87 (pony car)
2016 Tesla Model S - 0.89 (electric sedan)
2017 Audi RS7 - 0.95 (sports sedan)
2014 Corvette Stingray - 1.11 (sports car)
2016 Corvette Z06 - 1.20 (sports car)
It is going to be a while (a long while) before you start seeing electric sports cars with any decent range. The problem is the batteries. Batteries are still extremely heavy, which makes trying to make an electric version really difficult that handles at the same level as a gas electric car. Sure, you can make it look sporty, but it'll still have handing issues that gas cars don't have to deal with.
For example, a new corvette stingray is ~3200 pounds, while a tesla model S is ~4800 pounds. That extra 50% mass hurts when you are trying to change directions.
Thanks for spreading more FUD. Resell was always an option, almost exactly how you describe how it "should be" as it was announced on day 1.
I for one was saddened by the fact that Microsoft caved on the issue. There was a lot of FUD floating around that time about what you could and couldn't do, most of it just lies.
It was never "always on". It had to be online once every 24 hours (or 1 hour if you were accessing your library from a remote console) both of those were part of the very first announcement.
There was never a ban on reselling used games, even from the day 1 announcement. The idea was that you could sell the used game, turn it back into a digital code that then you could transfer or sell to anyone. With that code you could install the game and play just like how you originally could. Yes, there was some talk about publishers being able to limit it resells to one time only, but that was up to the publishers to enable or not.
Now we just have it worse in every respect. Publishers can still limit resell by tying purchased to accounts, and you can't share your library or use it remotely at all.
A lot of theaters around here have changed. They aren't the old 90's movies theaters any more (yay!). They serve restaurant quality food, have the "dial-a-soda" machines so you can get your half cherry diet something half orange diet something if you want. The theaters have reclining sofa-ish leather chairs arranged in pairs. The food is brought to you in the theater, and you book your seat at the time you purchase your tickets.
This really solves most of my complaints about going to the local theater. No long lines -- EVER. Walk straight from the parking lot to my seat in the theater (ok, well, stop to order food, scan my phone/cc to get the tickets), then walk to theater. Comfy seats actually better than what I have at home (Yeah, I need to replace my sofa), and food that is quite good and neither me or my wife have to do the dishes afterwards. Now the only complaint is the price, but it's one I'm willing to pay for a good movie experience. The theaters are smaller, but the screen size hasn't shrunk by as much (the screens are practically wall to wall. I think the theater owners (AMC) have done a pretty good job of listening.
WTF? VW Crafter cool? ROFLMAO!
I suggest you stop trying to fit the average person into a high-end pickup truck and something more like what people in any other (sane) country drives. You get get good cars for under $20k with some really really nice features.
Most baby boomers don't have their retirement in stocks anymore -- any decent financial manager would have converted the bulk into more stable investments long ago.
Not the original poster, but social justice warrior is someone who takes a look at something and defines it in terms of social injustice, almost always without looking at it very deeply, and feels the compulsion to fix that injustice no matter the cost.
For example:
A company has 5 entry level workers, we'll call them A,B,C,D,and E. A (male with 10 years experience, and the best worker) gets paid $15/hr, B and C (one male one female each with 8 years experience) $14 and hour, D (3 years experience) is paid $13 and hour, and E (15 years experience, but mentally retarded) is paid $10 an hour. The SJW boss comes in and "fixes" the social injustice (C was female and should be paid equal pay, D was discriminated by age or whatever the latest fad is, E should be paid just as much because they have the same job regardless of productivity) by taking the average $13.20. Feeling awesome at fixing this social injustice he goes and celebrates. 2 weeks later, employee A leaves the company because a competitor gave him a raise to $20 an hour as he was been grossly underpaid given his skills. A couple weeks after being overworked, employees B & C leave the company because they can't keep up with the workload now that A has left, and they can't perform at the level he was. The company is now left with one employee who is just out of college has no industry experience and continues to make mistakes that A, B, or C never would have. The company while trying to find replacements for A, B and C can't find any except new college graduates. Product quality suffers, quantity production is in the toilet, and a month later the company goes bankrupt. Employee D loaded with college debt, takes the first job he finds at $12 an hour, and Employee E is out of work, back on social programs, and lives the life as a hermit in their 10'x10' apartment.
SJW moves on to the next company, touting how awesome of a job he did at his previous employer right before they went out of business.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what a SJW is -- looking for social injustices, finding them where they don't really exist, and fighting to get the fixed, no matter the cost or if they should be.
It is a one time use code, so they can have it all they want after I'm done.
Except most RAID controllers also have things like patrolling reads (bad sectors) and consistency checks (mismatched data/bitrot) to catch these types of issues. Granted, it's not a function of RAID itself, but most decent implementations include them.
Me, but the card is hardly obsolete in a year or two. I'll upgrade my main machine's video card every 2-3 years, and then swap it's old card to my secondary machine (Development box and server), which then moves it's old video card to a third machine. Sometimes my secondary machine doesn't need the upgrade, in which case it goes up on eBay for $200-$400. Which then turns the purchase into either 3 upgrades every 2-3 years for $700, or $300-$500 every 2-3 years if I eBay the old card.
Why would you buy a console whose video card and CPU are obsolete a year before you even buy it?
To avoid the security issue of chrome on linux, I suggest you switch to internet explorer. I haven't heard of any exploits of internet explorer on linux yet.
Good, then in 30 seconds please tell me which law was violated here.
2. You do not need to "consult a lawyer" to know what is legal and illegal.
Really? You have every law ever written memorized and every prescident ever ruled on? And you did this without 4 years in law school and 10 more years researching? That is impressive. More likely you are just extremely naive.
How and what you do is more often than not legal or illegal depending on how it is applied and where. No way in hell could any programmer writing code ever do anything productive if we had to research the ramifications of every change we are told to make and try to apply it to every jurisdiction on the planet and then write a 100 page paper outlining all the ways in which such change could possibly be used for "evil".
But since I have you here, and you are such a law expert, which LAW exactly is it that you believe that Vizio broke by sending back telemetry on it's application usage? Just to make it simple, I'll let you assume the jurisdiction is the United States.
"My boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense.
What? As a programmer, you expect *ME* to consult a lawyer for everything I'm told to do, and then follow up with the manufacturing to make sure they actually deliver whatever privacy notice may be required? Lol.