How can the individual make up their mind when they are being sold fake (or even worse, adulterated) prescription drugs (as happens all the time in countries that don't regulate them carefully)? Unless everyone has their own home gas chromatograph that's just not going to work... nice troll, but no thanks.
Do you know WHY Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc all have drugs at 1/10th (or less) of the cost of the US? Because they are single-payer. In a monopsony the buyer has a lot of control on the price, as opposed to the US where the drug monopolies have free reign.
There may be some merit to that argument for places like Mexico where quality controls are quite poor
This is in fact a government granted monopoly.
HAH! This is one of my favorite hypocrisies of the Libertarian. So, do you want the government to ensure your drugs are safe, or do you want to let anyone make and sell any drugs as cheaply as possible?
Because the only "government monopoly" in this case specifically or in many others generally is that other companies feel that it costs to much to test their drug to make sure it's safe. Is the system maybe a bit too careful? Probably. But when it's a life saving drug (that can be dangerous, as you said, without proper quality controls) it's hard to justify cutting corners to safe money.
You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases.
This is even more amazing! If that were true, anti-trust laws wouldn't be necessary. Wow. There are SO many examples that disprove this I wouldn't even know where to start. Thank you, it's been a long day so it was nice to have a good laugh...
Not sure about that, but it's definitely a dong.
The S has a 3rd row seat option that seats 7. That's been true for over 3 years.
Except this vehicle goes fast in a straight line, handles pretty well (not supercar well, but for 4 door? Definitely.) is ALL electric, seats 7, and is pretty close to being able to drive itself. And your numbers are off by 10x, it was $450M, not $4.9B. Due 2022, paid off in full in 2013.
I think they have earned the right to bleat on a bit.
I disagree about the "openness being a disadvantage." Seriously, name one thing that the carriers/OEMs do, in terms of software, that adds any significant value. I throw down the gauntlet.
The source cheaper hardware that require different (software) drivers. It adds significant value because they make their products more affordable to people who can't pay $700 for a smart phone. This is why Android is 80% of the smart phone market, and also why it's horribly fragmented. The openness is obviously both an advantage and disadvantage - cheaper phones, more market share, but a nightmare for cutting edge app developers to deal with.
That's great in theory, but in practice it's horribly restrictive to app developers that want some basic level of consistency among devices. It has nothing to do with "bling" and everything to do with support for all of the apps you use.
More than 10% of our Android app users are still on API 17 or earlier (*4* year old OS). We want to drop support for those devices but 10% is non trivial.
On the other hand, we stopped supporting iOS 6 (also released 4 years ago) so long ago I can't remember, and have required iOS 8 (released 2 years ago) since early this year with no complaints. We are planning on requiring iOS 9 in the next release (otherwise known as THE LATEST until 10 is released this fall) since Apple did not drop support for any devices with the new version.
The article is right that money talks, but to think they'd give any to an OEM. Ha.
Yep, that basically summarizes the whole problem. Money is the solution, Google doesn't want to share, and so OEMs have no incentive to keep their devices up to date.
And why should they? It's the same problem with all "smart" devices - phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. Any development effort spent on updating last year's devices is expense with no reward. If Google wants to keep Android devices on the latest version the hardware supports they need to create an incentive for OEMs to spend money to do so.
The obvious solution is some sort of revenue sharing on Google Play and Ads. Until they suck it up and share some of the $$$ they are making, Android will always be horribly fragmented.
That way the OEM is only responsible for a microkernel.
Any embedded developers out there with more info?
Yeah... that's not how microkernels work. In a microkernel the device drivers run outside of the kernel - the kernel just implements the minimal core hardware access/virtualization and OS features. The microkernel for an ARM-based platform would probably be highly portable to many different SoCs, but the drivers outside of the microkernel would be specific to the various peripheral features of the SoC & other hardware on each device.
I would have given you that if it was an isolated incident. But... Taepodong? For a missile? Kim Jong-un knows Western culture, I think he's punking us.
Manbang and chill, dude.
If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.