Sorry, but no. If keeping Person X employed for six more months would increase IBM's liabilities by $Y (as it may through a pension step-up), and his labor would be worth much less than $Y of that time, firing him would not be discrimination. It's simply a recognition of the fact that he cannot produce the value sufficient to justify his employment expenses. This is exactly why you're not supposed to hire someone in the first place. Firing him has nothing to do with his age and everything to do with costs imposed on the company. Did he have a contract guaranteeing him that job? Then why did he think the employer wouldn't fire him when he became a liability?
I seriously don't understand why people make this an age issue, and COMPLETELY ignore the whole pension system that set up such skewed incentives. Why do people love these defined benefit pensions so much, even though they give the employer the power to fire you to dodge paying benefits? That just means you're chained to your job. And conversely, if there's some safeguard to keep you from being fired for this reason, why would anyone want to hire you, when they're basically agreeing to extremely expensive arbitration?
Incidentally, I've never understood why pension plans are so ignorant of the concept of "time value of money". I found a pension plan summary from 1990 for Chrysler at my workplace a few months ago. (Chrysler used to own the facility.) It made pension benefits depend solely on final average salary and years with the company. That basically means that if you work there from ages 25-35, or 55-65, you get the same fraction of your salary as pension at 65, even even though the benefit for the younger worker is far less expensive. Why would you offer such a plan unless you were expecting to bind someone to you for the rest of their working years?
I feel bad for people who got suckered into DB plans, of course, but please, don't pretend there's any hatred for old people behind this.
I wonder how RMS is going to spin this victory to his States-side detractors?
He could say, "Wait a minute... Microsoft replaced 'My Computer' with 'Computer' and 'My Documents' with 'Documents'... and Gates says it's open source that's communist?"
The machine was not available for inspection during or after the demo,...
Yes... that's how a quantum mechanical system works -- you look at it, you change it. I can imagine these guys in peer review, "Look, this double-slit experiment of yours is really interesting and all, but we can't publish your results unless you record the photons going through EACH slot, on EACH time, otherwise, how do we know you're faking it?"
Well, to be honest... "God Says it. I believe it. That settles it." is not far removed from "Scientists agree on it. I believe it. That settles it." That's not to say science is the same as religion, it's just that you should believe in a theory because it consistently makes correct, falsifiable, significant, useful predictions. Whether any one group of people believes it shouldn't be the ultimate basis.
Personally, after finishing Zelda I started to play Red Steel which is not a particularly great game but is far better than the reviews would lead you to believe; from that I moved onto trauma center which is an enjoyable little game. Wii Sports still gets a lot of play at "parties" but Rayman seems to have been abandoned in favour of Wario Ware...
I largely agree. Red Steel isn't very polished, but on the important matter -- is it fun to play? -- it does very well. Most swordfighting games fail in that blocking requires an insane reaction time, but in Red Steel, it's an instinctual, intuitive motion. And believe me, you have not lived until you've made the leader of a large group surrender. (clank clank ca-clank-clank-clank as they drop their weapons:-P ) I sold Zelda and Rayman, but kept Red Steel. Zelda was of course very fun, but has very low replay value. (No, hunting down pieces of heart does not count as replay value.) Rayman was fun too, but lost its appeal quickly. People actually didn't even like it as a party game. To unlock the special shootout modes, you had to do a ton of easy shootouts -- just not worth it.
Then I'm kind of curious: If it's possible to make a computer using just hydraulics, why didn't people use them for that as far back as, say, the 18th century, when they had a use for them, and wouldn't need to "tame" electricity first?
That kind of made me wonder how it's a "hum". I mean,... isn't there some minimum threshold a cyclical process has to meet to be classified as a sound? Does the earth's one-revolution-per-year around the sun count as a "hum"? Does "me coming to work and returning home each day" count as a hum?
"Why do people say "price point" instead of "price"? Just to sound smart? In virtually every context, it's completely unnecessary." This suggested to everyone that you did not understand the difference between a 'price' and a 'price point'.
How? I said, "In virtually every context, it's completely unnecessary." That means I had in mind contexts where it was necessary, and thus understood its meaning! That means you don't need to explain that use to me. How hard is that to understand?
Now, if you go back and read the replies, you'll see that some people did understand me: [1], [2].
At least you corrected yourself after I explained the error, since you realized what a jerk that made you look like. Well, actually, you didn't, but I'm sure you thought about doing it.
You shouldn't worry about it so much. It happens to us all. I'm constantly bitten by information I forget to include in a post before hitting the submit button.
True... but you hit two submit buttons. And you didn't forget to include information... you forgot to check if your information was relevant.
If you're really interested in helping increase the signal to noise ration, I recommend not replying to my posts in future stories.
I'm truly sorry if you were offended, but I can't control if read something into text that isn't there.
True -- but you can control your knee-jerk instinct to show off your knowledge, based on the assumption the person who asked the question is an idiot.
I might have forgiven your first response, but as I recall, you replied AGAIN to repeat the same information, AFTER I reclarified my already-clear question. (Part of why I had to add my current sig.) It never occurred to you there might have been something you were missing?
2) If the customer doesn't realize that it is a mistake ("ooh I must be the lucky 100th buyer, I get both for free!"), then the contract is simply invalid. As you know, a contract is only valid once both sides receive appropriate consideration! Paying nothing or nearly nothing for $50+ worth of DVDs is not appropriate consideration.
It doesn't work like that. If what you're saying is true, no one could ever have a giveaway. They could all legally repo the items on the grounds that, "hey, that contract [i.e. the giveaway conditions] was invalid, I didn't get consideration".
Incidentally, I've seen the "contract must have consideration" many times on this story. I'm interested in knowing if you're aware of the reason for this rule, and if that reason is relevant to this case.
You actually were a friend until you gave a condescending reply to my question about why people always say "price point" when, in every actual use I've seen of it, "price" would convey the exact same information. ("Nintendo chose a good price for the Wii" = "Nintendo chose a good price point for the Wii") You gave a lecture about what a "price point" is in economic theory, which completely missed the point. Looks like your corporatespeak problem is more far-reaching.
Yes, I do. I have to build up a reserve for the next time I have the audacity to truthfully criticize Linux. (Okay, truthfully except that it should be "GRUB error 25 at stage 1.5" instead of "GRUB error 1.5"... that was a goof on my part.)
In between the mysterious treasure box that has been building up special discounts per years, the automatic offers to be part of one of thirty special discount clubs, the random free item it sends me after doing enough business with them, the surprise free shipping, the OMG LOOK AT YOUR SPECIAL OFFERS TODAY BUY IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES FOR A DISCOUNT, I'd have to say no, it's not obvious that they didn't intend it to be free. I mean, if I thought about it briefly, I'd conclude it was unintended, but I'd still have to check with them to be sure.
I agree, but you're even more right than you claimed:
Even if he didn't know, one would reasonably suspect that he would want to be charged for one of the box sets (Knowing how these promotions work, possibly the higher priced box set)
Would they? Amazon's whole model is based around shoving specially-tailored "discounts" in your face at seemingly random times. "Oh, you get 20% off on this item today", "Oh, sign up for a trial of the 1.57% discount", "Oh, SURPRISE! Free shipping today because your order was over $25 or it was a Wednesday... or something..."
It seems they want to have it both ways: have an extremely complicated system of making special offers and expect their customers to catch them when one special discount wasn't intended.
Kind of a convoluted analogy there, dude... when has that kind of thing ever happened? I mean, considering how advanced Amazon's IT is, you'd think they'd have some kind of failsafes to make sure they didn't accidentally discount a full purchase to zero before shipping, right?
Why not think of something that's actually likely to happen?
First, I don't think it was Jim Wales that made the DWL point, but the contributor who quoted him. Otherwise, we're in agreement. I understand how there can be an efficiency loss as a result of the effort expended with no net benefit. But it can't be explained through the mechanism of a deadweight loss, which I consider theoretically unsound. If there were something that truly benefited no one (*as they perceive it*) and had a high cost, it would not be done to begin with, rendering the point moot.
Small aside: I've always seen DWL as economists' sly way of saying "Oh, we're not making value judgments, no sir, we're just saying that some people were made worse off, while no one was made better off. You wouldn't support that... would you?" But I think to advocate any useful efficiency gain, you have to say, "yes, this person is worse off -- he'd like to get the money from being paid to game a search engine -- but his small gain simply isn't justified by the tremendous losses incurred."
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The requirements for something to be a recognized addiction are very clear: enough people have to squeal about it.
I don't think it's the the addition to masturbation that got the sperm on the keyboard, but the aversion to using a goddamn towel.
Good point: many laws today have basically been turned into arbitrarily-enforced policies that are little more than a pretense to loot the successful.
Wait, that was your point, right?
Sorry, but no. If keeping Person X employed for six more months would increase IBM's liabilities by $Y (as it may through a pension step-up), and his labor would be worth much less than $Y of that time, firing him would not be discrimination. It's simply a recognition of the fact that he cannot produce the value sufficient to justify his employment expenses. This is exactly why you're not supposed to hire someone in the first place. Firing him has nothing to do with his age and everything to do with costs imposed on the company. Did he have a contract guaranteeing him that job? Then why did he think the employer wouldn't fire him when he became a liability?
I seriously don't understand why people make this an age issue, and COMPLETELY ignore the whole pension system that set up such skewed incentives. Why do people love these defined benefit pensions so much, even though they give the employer the power to fire you to dodge paying benefits? That just means you're chained to your job. And conversely, if there's some safeguard to keep you from being fired for this reason, why would anyone want to hire you, when they're basically agreeing to extremely expensive arbitration?
Incidentally, I've never understood why pension plans are so ignorant of the concept of "time value of money". I found a pension plan summary from 1990 for Chrysler at my workplace a few months ago. (Chrysler used to own the facility.) It made pension benefits depend solely on final average salary and years with the company. That basically means that if you work there from ages 25-35, or 55-65, you get the same fraction of your salary as pension at 65, even even though the benefit for the younger worker is far less expensive. Why would you offer such a plan unless you were expecting to bind someone to you for the rest of their working years?
I feel bad for people who got suckered into DB plans, of course, but please, don't pretend there's any hatred for old people behind this.
I wonder how RMS is going to spin this victory to his States-side detractors?
... Microsoft replaced 'My Computer' with 'Computer' and 'My Documents' with 'Documents' ... and Gates says it's open source that's communist?"
He could say, "Wait a minute
The machine was not available for inspection during or after the demo, ...
... that's how a quantum mechanical system works -- you look at it, you change it. I can imagine these guys in peer review, "Look, this double-slit experiment of yours is really interesting and all, but we can't publish your results unless you record the photons going through EACH slot, on EACH time, otherwise, how do we know you're faking it?"
Yes
I kid, I kid. I think...
Well, to be honest ... "God Says it. I believe it. That settles it." is not far removed from "Scientists agree on it. I believe it. That settles it." That's not to say science is the same as religion, it's just that you should believe in a theory because it consistently makes correct, falsifiable, significant, useful predictions. Whether any one group of people believes it shouldn't be the ultimate basis.
Personally, after finishing Zelda I started to play Red Steel which is not a particularly great game but is far better than the reviews would lead you to believe; from that I moved onto trauma center which is an enjoyable little game. Wii Sports still gets a lot of play at "parties" but Rayman seems to have been abandoned in favour of Wario Ware ...
:-P ) I sold Zelda and Rayman, but kept Red Steel. Zelda was of course very fun, but has very low replay value. (No, hunting down pieces of heart does not count as replay value.) Rayman was fun too, but lost its appeal quickly. People actually didn't even like it as a party game. To unlock the special shootout modes, you had to do a ton of easy shootouts -- just not worth it.
I largely agree. Red Steel isn't very polished, but on the important matter -- is it fun to play? -- it does very well. Most swordfighting games fail in that blocking requires an insane reaction time, but in Red Steel, it's an instinctual, intuitive motion. And believe me, you have not lived until you've made the leader of a large group surrender. (clank clank ca-clank-clank-clank as they drop their weapons
Hey, good point.
Me: "Firefox deleted my bookmarks when I updated to the new version."
Mozilla: "Shut up. That's fixed in the new version. Download it here."
Then I'm kind of curious: If it's possible to make a computer using just hydraulics, why didn't people use them for that as far back as, say, the 18th century, when they had a use for them, and wouldn't need to "tame" electricity first?
Is this another aeolipile?
That kind of made me wonder how it's a "hum". I mean, ... isn't there some minimum threshold a cyclical process has to meet to be classified as a sound? Does the earth's one-revolution-per-year around the sun count as a "hum"? Does "me coming to work and returning home each day" count as a hum?
"Why do people say "price point" instead of "price"? Just to sound smart? In virtually every context, it's completely unnecessary." This suggested to everyone that you did not understand the difference between a 'price' and a 'price point'.
... but you hit two submit buttons. And you didn't forget to include information ... you forgot to check if your information was relevant.
How? I said, "In virtually every context, it's completely unnecessary." That means I had in mind contexts where it was necessary, and thus understood its meaning! That means you don't need to explain that use to me. How hard is that to understand?
Now, if you go back and read the replies, you'll see that some people did understand me: [1], [2].
At least you corrected yourself after I explained the error, since you realized what a jerk that made you look like. Well, actually, you didn't, but I'm sure you thought about doing it.
You shouldn't worry about it so much. It happens to us all. I'm constantly bitten by information I forget to include in a post before hitting the submit button.
True
If you're really interested in helping increase the signal to noise ration, I recommend not replying to my posts in future stories.
I'm truly sorry if you were offended, but I can't control if read something into text that isn't there.
True -- but you can control your knee-jerk instinct to show off your knowledge, based on the assumption the person who asked the question is an idiot.
I might have forgiven your first response, but as I recall, you replied AGAIN to repeat the same information, AFTER I reclarified my already-clear question. (Part of why I had to add my current sig.) It never occurred to you there might have been something you were missing?
2) If the customer doesn't realize that it is a mistake ("ooh I must be the lucky 100th buyer, I get both for free!"), then the contract is simply invalid. As you know, a contract is only valid once both sides receive appropriate consideration! Paying nothing or nearly nothing for $50+ worth of DVDs is not appropriate consideration.
It doesn't work like that. If what you're saying is true, no one could ever have a giveaway. They could all legally repo the items on the grounds that, "hey, that contract [i.e. the giveaway conditions] was invalid, I didn't get consideration".
Incidentally, I've seen the "contract must have consideration" many times on this story. I'm interested in knowing if you're aware of the reason for this rule, and if that reason is relevant to this case.
You actually were a friend until you gave a condescending reply to my question about why people always say "price point" when, in every actual use I've seen of it, "price" would convey the exact same information. ("Nintendo chose a good price for the Wii" = "Nintendo chose a good price point for the Wii") You gave a lecture about what a "price point" is in economic theory, which completely missed the point. Looks like your corporatespeak problem is more far-reaching.
Do you need karma this bad?
... that was a goof on my part.)
Yes, I do. I have to build up a reserve for the next time I have the audacity to truthfully criticize Linux. (Okay, truthfully except that it should be "GRUB error 25 at stage 1.5" instead of "GRUB error 1.5"
Christmas was more than a few days ago.
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
Yeah, but at least this time, he didn't tout the PS3's untitled, unannounced, unknown developer, unknown release-date, vague-genre games.
You know, I've seen that remark all over this story. I'm interested in knowing what fraction of lawyers -- or you -- understands why rule exists.
Which of the internets did they send you?
Well, first, have you used Amazon?
In between the mysterious treasure box that has been building up special discounts per years, the automatic offers to be part of one of thirty special discount clubs, the random free item it sends me after doing enough business with them, the surprise free shipping, the OMG LOOK AT YOUR SPECIAL OFFERS TODAY BUY IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES FOR A DISCOUNT, I'd have to say no, it's not obvious that they didn't intend it to be free. I mean, if I thought about it briefly, I'd conclude it was unintended, but I'd still have to check with them to be sure.
I agree, but you're even more right than you claimed:
... or something ..."
Even if he didn't know, one would reasonably suspect that he would want to be charged for one of the box sets (Knowing how these promotions work, possibly the higher priced box set)
Would they? Amazon's whole model is based around shoving specially-tailored "discounts" in your face at seemingly random times. "Oh, you get 20% off on this item today", "Oh, sign up for a trial of the 1.57% discount", "Oh, SURPRISE! Free shipping today because your order was over $25 or it was a Wednesday
It seems they want to have it both ways: have an extremely complicated system of making special offers and expect their customers to catch them when one special discount wasn't intended.
Kind of a convoluted analogy there, dude ... when has that kind of thing ever happened? I mean, considering how advanced Amazon's IT is, you'd think they'd have some kind of failsafes to make sure they didn't accidentally discount a full purchase to zero before shipping, right?
Why not think of something that's actually likely to happen?
First, I don't think it was Jim Wales that made the DWL point, but the contributor who quoted him. Otherwise, we're in agreement. I understand how there can be an efficiency loss as a result of the effort expended with no net benefit. But it can't be explained through the mechanism of a deadweight loss, which I consider theoretically unsound. If there were something that truly benefited no one (*as they perceive it*) and had a high cost, it would not be done to begin with, rendering the point moot.
... would you?" But I think to advocate any useful efficiency gain, you have to say, "yes, this person is worse off -- he'd like to get the money from being paid to game a search engine -- but his small gain simply isn't justified by the tremendous losses incurred."
Small aside: I've always seen DWL as economists' sly way of saying "Oh, we're not making value judgments, no sir, we're just saying that some people were made worse off, while no one was made better off. You wouldn't support that
I wonder if all the polls will have only two possible responses? Slashdotters complain when they are fewer than... well, infinity.
And then when you do add infinite options, Slashdotters will complain that they're only countably infinite.