It's not that it's not workable, it's that the markets are not efficient (in the economic sense). Note that this took TEN YEARS to occur. Had the reaction been on the order of 3-6 months, I'd say it worked properly. The time from the beginning of price gouging to the current state where the cost is a single digit multiple of the production cost means that the marketplace is only reactive to massive imbalances.
You don't think that the barriers to entry (patents & FDA) had anything to do with the "slow" reaction?
I had them burrow into the fascia for my deck when I lived in Virginia. If you sit on the deck, you can hear them chewing away.
I caught one boring a whole in my deck. They can chew quite fast. I happened to have a garden spade in my hand, so I chopped it in half while it's head was embedded in the wood. Those are ones you don't want to let go of, or you'll have a massive problem.
So according to you fraud is ok because nobody *has* to buy from Amazon? Weird argument you have there. Sorry but retailers shouldn't get to make any and all claims about their product regardless of veracity. This includes lying about the "market" value of the product to make it seem like it is a better deal than it actually is.
Fraud would be if they offered you a product for a certain price, then charged you a different price. Or charged you that price but sent you a different item. Or made a claim that a product had certain features but didn't. The market value of anything is whatever people are willing to pay for it. So it doesn't really matter if you claim that your product is ordinarily worth x; it only matters that you're selling it for y. Your argument boils down to "I think other people are stupid."
Canada's Competition Bureau said in a statement. "The Bureau determined that Amazon relied on its suppliers to provide list prices without verifying that those prices were accurate."
If that's the price the suppliers are giving them, why wouldn't it be accurate? Nobody forces people to buy from Amazon, there's an entire world wide web out there where they can compare prices and make their own determinations. Heck, there are even sites that will do the comparisons for you. Likewise, nobody ever pays MSRP on anything anyway; this sounds like a bogus complaint to me.
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
No, you don't reload the same page constantly, but you usually visit several pages within the same site. There's no reason you'd want those images to reload every time. I saw somewhere that the average user only visits 5 different sites per day. That was a few years back, so it has probably changed since then, but I wouldn't think it's too dramatic.So it seems to me that caching extends battery life to expected levels.
Anyone try one of those cheap "Smart Watches" you see on Amazon? Here's one I looked at: CNPGD Bluetooth Smart Wrist Wrap Watch Phone for IOS and Android, Black
I don't know. Based on the size, it appears to be a bit cumbersome...
it has garbage collection, it doesn't carry the baggage of a runtime around with it
Sigh. Of course it has a runtime. Where else would the garbage collection that you just mentioned be implemented? Or GoRoutines. Or reflection.
I think you're confusing not having a runtime with having the Go compiler statically link the runtime into each executable. That has some benefits that you were alluding to (e.g. "no baggage") but it also has drawbacks such as increased executable size, increased memory usage (with a dynamic runtime, different instances all share the same library in memory), decreased cache usage (since if you have two Go executables, they are constantly evicting each others runtimes from cache, even though they are identical and could be shared) and the maintenance issues having to recompile to take advantage of security/bug/performance improvements in the runtime itself.
I have no issue if you claim that in some (your) use cases the advantages of a statically compiled runtime are worth the disadvantages. But that's not the same as claiming that either the runtime doesn't exist or that it's always advantageous.
Sit down and figure out how you can make any decent income off of a $30 phone, even if made in India.
There's already a bunch of phones for the $30 price point available in the states, not sure why they can't sell them there for the same price.
If CSS is implemented correctly, it should reduce page size in terms of data transmitted, given that you're viewing multiple pages of the same site.
The pie is the total revenue of Apple (specifically, $215.6 billion) so every penny that Tim Cook and the other executives get is a penny that didn't go to the people actually doing the work. Yes, I realize it would only be a difference of a few cents per employee, but it's still unfair for one person to make more in one day (day after day) than most people make in a year.
So what you're saying is now that Cook's compensation has been cut, all other Apple workers have been given raises? Because that's what the implication would be to your line of thinking.
The money they pay those high-priced exec doesn't come out of thin air, it comes directly out of our pockets, in the form of higher prices
So you really think Apple bases their prices on how much they are paying their executives? Guess again.
and lower wages.
There is no pie. Someone making more money doesn't automatically mean someone else is making less.
I consider a new device or technology to have been culturally accepted when it has been used to commit a murder. -- M. Gallaher