[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 600x325, ipad2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3059966 No.3059966 [Reply] [Original]

does anyone else find modern commercialization even the slightest bit depressing? dishonest companys, planned obsolescence, planned failure, "micro-bubble technology", "micro-particle technology"

>> No.3059969

Yes, but this is not /sci/ realted. Discuss it over on 4chon's /r9k/ or something.

>> No.3059980

The most depressing part is that people actually buy that shit.

>> No.3059984

Incredibly. Unfortunately, we're still a few decades away from the technology that will allow us to escape from such mundane corporate dishonesty.

However, there does seem to be a trend where people prefer to use the product of those who are less assholes and seem to have a higher goal. see: Founders of Google, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Richard Branson etc
So The near future won't be *too* bad.

>> No.3059990

>>3059969
i thought /sci/ would be the best place to have an intelligent discussion.

>> No.3059992

>>3059969

> spamming for another website
> arguing about what is allowed on /sci/
> does not know how fucking stupid that is

>> No.3060186

>>3059984
moar on this technology?

>> No.3060199

open source is the future

>> No.3060224

>>3060186

http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/02/14/adding-our-way-to-abundance/

I think we're closer than a few decades though, I'd suggest within the next 1 this stuff gets worthwhile enough to make usable on a large scale.

Some places use it already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw82KSzvkAs

>> No.3060266

i dont really see an end. in fact i can only see it getting worse. the general population is too stupid. and until people learn to enjoy what they have instead of wanting new things (which will never happen) these big dishonest companies (like apple) will continue to make money. sadly, its more about the marketing than the product

>> No.3060331

>>3060224

You just made my day, friend.

You also probably ruined it for a buddy of mine who works in the manufacturing industry.

>> No.3061048

>>3060331

Welp, he'll have to adapt. All the main businesses will. Which is what should happen. Adapt or die.

>> No.3061075

>>3060331

Check this 3D printer out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snOErpOP5Xk&feature=player_embedded

It uses UV resins and is incredibly high resolution.

>> No.3061090

>>3061075

Yeah, they are working on ones that build organs out of stem cells.

They are estimating about 2020 we'll be able to print out organs.

>> No.3061099

>>3061090

3D printing is going to revolutionise our entire society.

Every house will have a printer and instead of buying physical goods people will just print them out at home.

>> No.3061114

>>3061099

Here's hoping.

I expect the first few waves to ship with DRM but, well, you've seen how well that works for everyone else who has ever tried it...

And it's even more unlikely once you have a machine that can build another version of itself. It only takes one DRM free printer to create enough for the whole planet.

>> No.3061119
File: 14 KB, 476x373, 1282038056020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061119

>>3060224
>Once we’ve solved the problems of making organs, making rib-eyes will be a walk in the park. Yes, there are numerous issues that need to be solved for mass production, but we are making such enormous progress in the field of bio-printing that it seems likely we could see “food printers” become a reality by 2020 as well. That’s not to say they will be commonplace, or that they will have eliminated the need for agriculture or the cattle industry, but functional commercial units by that time are quite possible.

>mfw replicators from Star Trek

>> No.3061120

>>3061099
But there will still be a hefty market for the materials required for printing. And who knows, schematics may even be for sale too. The entire market will not just vanish, it will shift to an entirely different field.

>> No.3061151

>>3061120
And then the FBI will literally start kicking in doors for intellectual property theft.

>> No.3061184

>>3061120

I'm guessing it'll be like modern printers today. The printer is inexpensive but the printing material costs a fortune.

>> No.3061195

bad news OP, you have some assburgers

>> No.3061232

Personal 3D printers are a fucking retarded idea. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for people to have these at home.

What's more convenient:

1) Keeping a massive store of raw materials for use in your printer just in case you need to print yourself a new computer/blender/Real Doll

2) Ordering that shit online then having a driverless vehicle deliver it to your house.

If you went for option 1 then DING DING WE HAVE A A WINNER FOR THE FUCKTARD AWARDS

>> No.3061239

>planned obsolescence

What's the alternative to this?

They release everything they that they are capable of doing at the one time meaning potential for mistakes is exacerbated (since the tech isn't refined)

they release everything at the one time and you have to wait longer for new releases - in that time income could prove insufficient (company goes bust)

>> No.3061248

>>3061232
>A A WINNER

Oh god why did you do that, finger, WHY?

>> No.3061253

Are you complaining about the Ipad 2 or something?
lol

>> No.3061254

>>3061232

Having feedlines going to every house, delivering raw materials on command as needed, in the same way we have lines now that bring water or electricity.

And the option to stockpile, if you are really paranoid.

>> No.3061272

>>3061232
It won't replace everything
But you will be able to print figurines for warhammer and dnd
and in the end, isn't that what everyone was thinking of using it for anyways?

>> No.3061288

>>3061254

You are totally retarded. Do you really think we're going to have aluminium, iron, magnesium, lithium, carbon etc just piped into our homes?

How much would that infrastructure cost? Fuck I'm not even going to entertain this idea, it makes no sense and sounds very much like one of those ideas that people had in the 1950s about the future.

>> No.3061317

>>3061288

>Fuck I'm not even going to entertain this idea, it makes no sense and sounds very much like one of those ideas that people had in the 1950s about the future.

That's what people said about having electricity and gas piped to peoples homes.

>> No.3061322

>>3061317
Nobody actually said that

>> No.3061339

Its totally depressing. Partly because I dont think the problem exists in companies, it exists in human beings. I was thinking about this problem the other day. Here is an example to demonstrate this problem I am realizing.

Here is a reality that may or may not have ever existed. Its 1980 and there are a handful of news media corporations. They are competing with each other, not directly for viewers, but they are competing with each other in terms of journalistic honesty, and accuracy. The managers hire journalists, but they journalists can write about anything they want, and are not supervised by anyone.

Then Fox news comes along. Fox news plays dirty. It sees there being a huge market for people who prefer the news to sound republican. Its an opportunity to make a lot of money, but they will have to enter the market and not play by the same rules their competitors have been doing ie: honesty and accuracy. Fox news (this part is true) buys up a bunch of independent news agency, and radically changes the managerial system. Now journalists answer to managers, and managers outline what stories will be covered on a day to day basis.

Suddenly there is a huge shift in viewers from the old companies to Fox news. If you asked anyone what they wanted they would have said honesty and accuracy, but when given the option they dont pick honesty and accuracy, they pick fox news. Fox news is now dominating in the business, and their competitors have to respond because the market as a whole has changed. They also have to mimic the fox news system: opinions and emotional appeal.

Suddenly, everything fell apart. We are left with a news media worse off than what it used to be.I dont know whether to call this a market failure or not.

This has happened in a lot of industries, not just news agencies. It could be said Adidas, Reebok, and Nike all used to be shoe companies. Now they are all brand companies that pay someone to make shoes.

>> No.3061361

The Ipad is overpriced and lacks functionality. Its 500 dollars STARTING (which means, if I remember correctly from the first Ipad, that you don't get wifi with that model) and isn't particularly useful for anything at all except maybe reading books. Apple has this strange history of marketing really stupid things, and being exceptional at convincing people to buy them. That 'magic trackpad' is the same thing: a massive touchpad for a desktop computer. Everyone hated touchpads on laptops, what's the appeal of dealing with one of the more annoying aspects of computing?

>> No.3061369
File: 12 KB, 316x202, morose_amphibian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061369

>>3061339
>>3061339

>> No.3061377

>>3061288
You could probably just use a highly enriched brine and the end user just has to seperate out the various ions

>> No.3061389
File: 257 KB, 501x581, paul_willeax2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061389

>>3061339

Im going to continue rambling.

Nike, Adidas, and Reebok. Nike at least, spends more money on marketing than it does on anything else, and doesnt actually own any clothes or shoe making assets. Whats happened in the last 30 years is companies realized they could make more money, by just convincing people they make good products, than actually making good products.

Its totally just empty, and evil, and I cant believe we live in the reality we do. And I cant blame these companies for making money. You have to blame the consumer. These consumers are being dumb, and responding to these shitty, shallow, marketing campaigns. For a lack of anything more to say Im just going to say: Everyone will pay

>mfw when everyone will pay

>> No.3061395

>>3061339

Exactly, we're not selling function anymore. And I'm not saying that as some Luddite who thinks that newfangled technology is losing its function. There are some companies genuinely trying to make innovations. The problem is now some companies are actually sacrificing function in exchange for style and so on.

>> No.3061411

>>3061395

Well what do you think about that? Given that this business strategy works, do you hold it against companies for the decisions they make?

>> No.3061418
File: 15 KB, 279x239, 1285986016044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061418

>>3061389
>>3061389

>> No.3061437

>>3061389

This is exactly the point.

The hope is that, when anyone can make anything out of the raw amterials directly without need for development of large-scale manufacturing and million dollar prototyping, the little guy will be able to compete much more effectively with the larger corporations.

An example that was given was Second Life. In the beginning, there were several large companies that tried to get in on the in game design to pump their designer labels to the masses. However, they got out-competed by random artists working out of their homes, with no huge investments. Since everyone had equal creation capacity and equal resources, it was purely down to the quality and cost.

>> No.3061461

>>3061395
I want to kill myself a little more every time someone says innovation instead of invent.

What is this faggotry that has besieged america?

>> No.3061464

>>3061437

> when anyone can make anything out of the raw amterials directly without need for development of large-scale manufacturing and million dollar prototyping, the little guy will be able to compete much more effectively with the larger corporations.

I think there is some truth to that. Nike isnt competing in a shoe market. They have a monopoly on the Nike attitude, and Nike shoes.

>> No.3061483

>>3061464

That's basically it. If you read the article I linked a bit further up, the writer explains why the companies would love to push this technology on consumers. Because then they could sell the pattern for the same cost as the whole deal now, without spending money on prototyping, materials, shipping etc.

All you have to do is expect corporations to be always seeking out profit above all else. Which isn't a hard prediction.

>> No.3061493

>>3061339

There is no problem in reacting to a changing market.

>> No.3061498

>>3061461

Look, I can't expect every company to come up with an invention. I can however, I think, reasonably expect them to innovate.

>> No.3061511

>>3061464

And when you realize that regulation increase the cost and amount of barriers to entry, you may come around to the logical side of economics.

>> No.3061519

>>3061411

I agree that consumers are to blame for the most part. I do think we should have better regulations about these things though - more support should be given to third parties doing reviews of all of these products, and that information should be made more available to consumers. We shouldn't expect consumers to have perfect information, and at this point we should assume they're getting more information from the companies pushing their product than from unbiased sources. To improve consumer behavior I think this would be a good first step.

>> No.3061524

>>3061483
It is however hard to predict how rational that profit seeking is at an arbitrary point in the future.

>> No.3061533

>>3061498
But innovation in business context means adding the Z to the EXTREMEZ.

The point I'm making is innovation is a symptom of what OP is finding problematic.

>> No.3061542

>>3061519

I dont know if we should regulate this. I dont think this comes down to information. This is just preferences. Costumers need to get smarter preferences. I think the only thing thats going to change preferences, is when this Earth gets so destroyed, and so backwards that companies like Nike just cant afford to exist anymore and our markets devolve into a more primitive existence.

Im not sure if thats a good reply, and Im not sure if we agree or not.

>> No.3061543

>>3061464

That's actually a really interesting thesis, how branding affects market monopolization.

>> No.3061553

>>3061533
so... you just don't like the way "innovation" is often used as a buzzword sooner than referring to actually implementing original and novel ideas to improve functionality?

>> No.3061556

>>3061075

Can you imagine having every element pumped directly into your home like gas, water and electricity?

>> No.3061561

i love globalisation, i love capitalism, i love commercialization! tell me what is wrong with it? tell me what is wrong w RFID chip - you still live in caves and eat grass? this is technology, this is power, this is godhood!

>> No.3061562

>>3061543

sigh

If you can specify a market that way then every business has a monopoly.

>> No.3061574

>>3061542

We do agree, but for some reason you suggest the best way is to let it just play out until things go to shit. All I was suggesting is that we modify consumer preferences by providing them with unbiased information, from a source that itself becomes a brand for deciding the best brands. It doesn't have to be a government entity, just a business that's regulated sufficiently to try to prevent Nike from giving them money under the table.

>> No.3061575

>>3061561

You meant to say welfare state capitalism (which is not capitalism at all).

>> No.3061581

>>3061542
customers just need to fit economic algorithms better.

>BE MORE RATIONAL YOU'RE MAKING MY LINEAR FIT LOOK BAD.

>> No.3061584

>>3061543

They dont literally have a monopoly. But if you look at it in practical terms, the consumers and Nike kind of act like its a monopoly. Kind of... Im not really sure.

Ultimately Nike can charge significantly more just because something says Nike on it. I own a rice cooker that says "Cuisine art" on it. But Cuisine Art isnt a company. Its a trade mark owned by another company, that knows people will buy shit if it says "Cuisine Art" on it. Likewise with sharper image. Sharper image went bankrupt, and so they sold all their assets. One asset is the name and logo "The Sharper image" which got bought by another company which will just plaster the same ol' shitty air purifier with the term "The Sharper Image" because that sells better.

>> No.3061590

>>3061562

That's a good point, I accept it.

>> No.3061591

>>3061574

> doesnt need to be government run
> needs to be regulated
> thinks regulations actually stops what they regulate

>> No.3061602
File: 905 KB, 3264x2448, Adesina_-_A_Wooden_Mendel_RepStrap_current_state.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061602

>>3061288
exactly, why would I pipe in raw materials when I could condense hydrogen out of the air using power from the sun to build anything I could ever think of?

I mean piping it all in is more ridiculous than buying a physical object build next door.

>> No.3061605

>>3061584

Congratulations, you just learned that a name and longevity creates value. Welcome to economics 032.

>> No.3061610

The OP image made me realize, didn't the Ipad (#1) come out not that long ago at all? And already there's another?

What the fuck, man. I hope nobody buys it. But they will.

>> No.3061616

>>3061591

I know it's not perfect, and there'll be some problems but it's better than no implementation at all. To suggest otherwise is like saying we should use private security forces instead of police because police don't prevent all the crimes.

>> No.3061618

>>3061574

How do you provide them with "unbiased information"? Do you think the information that exists is biased? If you came up to a random person and said "A company which employs child labor" youll likely get the response "What is Nike?" People know these kinds of things. For some reason it doesnt enter into their brains when they get all captivated by images of Jordan.

>from a source that itself becomes a brand for deciding the best brands

Well we kind of have some systems like that. Like the better business bureau, and consumer report (I think?). I think the problem is that brands exist to begin with. Maybe this is a problem of definitions. I feel, a product and company having an identity is not a brand. A brand is when the company becomes more recognizable than the service or product it offers.

>> No.3061620

>>3061574
>>It doesn't have to be a government entity, just a business that's regulated sufficiently to try to prevent Nike from giving them money under the table.
>>NO IT SHOULDN'T BE REGULATED EITHER
>>any business that accepts money from Nike under the table will fail anyway in an unregulated free market
>>because therefore they are doing a bad job at what they do and THE FREE MARKET will eliminate them in favor of their honest and therefore stronger competition

libertarian logic

>> No.3061624

>>3061575
a welfare state capitalism? tell me more
(mechanotronic-fag here)

>> No.3061626

>>3061610

There are multiple benefits to having upgrades come out yearly. The older ones will now have a much lower price and will increase the market. The new ones are more advanced and can stay with the advancements in computer technology easier.

>> No.3061629

>>3061581

Thats not what I am saying. I understand people dont meet the models.

I bet you dont think people are perfect either. Im just saying I hope one day people become better than what they are today. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Id be surprised if you didnt believe that.

With that said I dont think homo economicus is an inherently better. This problem is a problem about values and not rationality.

>> No.3061630

>>3061605

I think that's the point though. It's not really creating value in the same way increases in productivity and technological growth create value. It's equivalent to the government just printing out money to increase value - except it's a company boosting their brand to increase value.

>> No.3061635

>>3061616

The fact that the gubbmint cannot stop what they claim to be needed for is precisely why the gubbmint is pointless.

>> No.3061638

>>3061553
I just hate that inventing is no longer a cool thing to do.

>sadface.bat

>> No.3061645

>>3061630

Except that this is real value.

The printing of money like the Fed simply decreases the value of all the same currency which creates higher prices, not value.

>> No.3061646

>>3061610
Its innovation kid. Apple cultivated a superior brand, a brand linked to always having the latest branded product.

Its the same way DeBeer's keeps the supply of diamonds artificially low.

>> No.3061652

>>3061618

What I'm saying is we should make things like consumer report more ubiquitous and have it cover a broader range of products. No one cares about 'child labor', that's not necessarily what I mean by the fact that they have bad information. What I mean is they don't know WHY Nike shoes are better than brand X. They just know it's Nike. What kind of plastics does Nike use? Why are those better? Do they last longer, do they do something else? How does the air pocket system in Nike actually improve running performance?
Showing Jordan playing basketball implies that this Nike shoe improves MY basketball performance without giving any evidence as to why that might be. People make these connections and buy products on very primitive grounds. We do need smarter consumers, but we need to help MAKE them smarter consumers - even if it's not going to stop everyone from buying something with no knowledge of it.

>> No.3061667

>>3061620

I never said it shouldn't be regulated. Maybe I did, I don't remember. If I did I retract the statement. What I mean is the business like consumer report doesn't have to be a government entity, but it SHOULD be regulated to ensure that there aren't under the table deals. Then I noted that even though this won't stop all the problems, it is analogous to police versus PSCs.

>> No.3061669

>>3061652

I dont know... Im... not convinced it could be done.

Another thing is, Im not really convinced the government should spend any money doing this. Which I think would have to be th case. Unless some private institution wants to make a massive investment.

>> No.3061681

>>3061635

Now you're just being an idiot. Police DO improve society as there are SOME crimes that are prevented. It's a shit system as it is now, sure, but more are prevented than if there were not any police. What are you an anarchist? Worse, a libertarian. In the same way, government regulations do manage to catch some malfeasance (maybe not in the US, but I'm not in the US) - much more than would be caught with no one to try to catch them.

>> No.3061682

>>3061652

Unless the company makes that claim, they did no such thing. The way you took the commercial is of no concern to what they claim in the commercial.

>> No.3061695

>>3061681

There is no proof that they "improve" society. You would need to first prove those crimes would happen with no society funded police force.

>> No.3061702

>>3061669

So you propose that consumers will just somewhere down the line see the error in their ways and repent? How about this: research how consumer reports influences buying decisions, create the new organization, and work in tandem with consumer reports, provided that they were shown successful, to reduce poor buying decisions.

>> No.3061708

>>3061702

"Poor" buying decisions are absurdly subjective. What is a poor choice for you is not t a poor choice for me absolutely, and may not be a poor choice for anyone else.

>> No.3061711

>>3059966
>modern commercialization even the slightest bit depressing?

It's hard not to. Everything is optimzied for maximum profit concentration and selling shit that people don't really need. Dishonest and massively overhyped advertisements is quite nauseating too.
Oh, and creating a nice looking image and facade when the real modus operandi involves strangulating and shittalking the competition, maximizing profit margins at any cost and god knows what else.

I would do it if I had the knowhow myself though, because money.

It's a systemic problem and we'll all be fucked over a hundred times before someone decides to change it for the better.

>> No.3061714

>>3061702

>So you propose that consumers will just somewhere down the line see the error in their ways and repent?

Yes.... You are kind setting me up to look bad. I dont think they will repent. But I think due to scarcity and higher costs of raw materials people will just have to go back to a more simply and cost efficient market. The only reason companies like Nike can exist today, is because its cheap for some manufacturer in asia to make shoes and then ship them accross the earth. Oil will run out one day and Nike wont be able to pull off that scheme eventually.

Id hate to count on such a thing, but, yeah I think people will change. For better or worse.

>How about this: research how consumer reports influences buying decisions, create the new organization, and work in tandem with consumer reports, provided that they were shown successful, to reduce poor buying decisions.

Thats great, but it costs money to do such a thing. If you can get the money to do it, better to you.

>> No.3061719

>>3061667
When you start regulating things you start having problems. There is absolutely no need to regulate Consumer Reports. Self-interest alone assures that they will avoid even the slightest hint of partiality.

>> No.3061720
File: 7 KB, 251x240, 1303640006935.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061720

>>3061711

Yes

>mfw when yes

>> No.3061723

>>3061682

There are studies in psychology, and real cognitive science, that show people make such inferences. The company knows what it's doing, it had the intention of creating such an influence and if you do some looking around you'll find that there's evidence that consumers absorbed such an influence.

Regarding police, I realize it's very hard to prove that an anarchistic society would be worse off without saying "look at Somalia", which I'd like to do but it's been done to death. What reason do you have for suggesting that less police would result in the same or less crime? I think my argument, albeit from intuition, is pretty reasonable: Police are supposed to prevent and punish crime. We have lots of police. Therefore, it is likely, statistically, at least one crime has been prevented or punished that would not have been otherwise. I mean, why do you think businesses hire security and so on? It's the same idea, except not every household can buy guards.

>> No.3061724

>>3061652
People who buy Nikes, or otherwise buy things for the purpose of prominent display of brand names, have no interest in being smart consumers.

>> No.3061728
File: 83 KB, 600x600, flcl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061728

Capitalism is the business end of science and they have danced hand in hand for 200 years. If capitalism is evil then I glad for if a fruity communist utopia is impossible then at least tyrants will always value science.

>> No.3061736

>>3061708

You know what I mean, if you don't here's an example: A person wants to buy shoes that are good for running. X Y and Nike are shown to him. X are better for running (say). The person will still buy Nike. I'm not saying Nike shoes are always shit of course, maybe X isn't better than Nike in their other shoe types, and so Nike would maximize utility under a different scenario. I contend though that these buying decisions happen all the time, where X is disregarded for no reason aside from a lack of consumer awareness to the benefits of X. This is another thing you could find plenty of case studies regarding.

>> No.3061738

>>3061667
>>I never said it shouldn't be regulated. Maybe I did, I don't remember. If I did I retract the statement.

whoops
no, that was misuse of greentext on my end, sorry

I was mocking a common response I've seen to regulation of market information distribution

I actually do agree with you, the alternative is a ridiculous infinite series of unregulated evaluation companies judging eachothers' evaluations

>> No.3061740

>>3061629
I guess thats just too ambiguous to me.

My problem is that economics is a function of two levels of individuality and causation.

Both psychological and social, and economics tries to 'value' the link between the two.

However, since economics itself is a description of a system of rationality, and humans are not or ever will be ideally rational, the theory of economics will always change the reality of economics.

The aspect that is confusing, that people don't tend to notice, is that no system that relies of efficient information but no obvious external mechanism to illicit a response, can not be modeled in the long term.

In other words, if you tell someone a piece of information, and they give you no indication that they parsed it, heard it or bothered to remember it, how can you tell me you can predict their response?

>> No.3061745

>>3061714

What if we take X out of the defense budget and do it? What if say, the Democrats decided to do that? No additional taxes, nothing. Would you agree to it?

>> No.3061746

>>3061723

That is the person's problem. Unless you can prove intent top defraud them, it is pointless.

Somalia simply has a bunch of smaller states. Just because they have no centralized state does not mean they suddenly have no state.

Removal of the police would create a whole new society. A society filled with people that can now not get punished for owning protection in the form of guns, knives, basts, etc will have lower crime rates. Burglary rates in the UK are ridiculous specifically because they know owner of the house mostly likely does not own a gun and will be punished for using a weapon to defend themselves and their property.,

>> No.3061753

>>3061695
If you like, I will buy you a one way ticket to somalia.

>> No.3061756

>>3061736

Prove they are specifically there to buy shoes better for running alone. You can't. They most likely had other wants like looks, name brand, etc, etc, etc.

>> No.3061757

>>3061740

>In other words, if you tell someone a piece of information, and they give you no indication that they parsed it, heard it or bothered to remember it, how can you tell me you can predict their response?

Im not really sure what you are trying to say. I dont see the connection between predicting a response, given they didnt show a response to a certain piece of information.

>> No.3061758

>>3061702
>writes business proposal
>demonstrates business proposal will be successful
>rinse, repeat

>> No.3061767

>>3061753

Why? It is a state.

>> No.3061771

>>3061695

Look at the most developed countries in this world and compare them to third world countries.

crime rates and such are much much much higher.

Mexico murder rates, the amount of rape in Africa and so on.

>> No.3061781

>>3061746

You don't at all take into account people irrationally misusing those weapons, say, killing an ex in a particularly heated debate or so on. Just because everyone has access to weapons doesn't mean they won't be used. In fact studies that correlate gun control to crime show increases in crime where regulation is down. Show me the bias in those studies before you repudiate them.

And I'm not playing the blame game regarding the consumer. I'm just saying, yeah, that sucks for him and it's great for Nike. It also sucks for X though. We're not rewarding MERIT is the problem here. We're not rewarding innovation, invention, or technological growth in any way by letting Nike take that sale. X happened to have a better product and it got looked over. This is harmful for long term economic growth. I'm sure you've taken enough economics classes to see that.

>> No.3061797

>>3061746

or, we end up with lots of people taking justice into their own hands, regardless of whether or not the the suspect is the criminal or not.

there is a need for a emotionally unbiased 3d party even in matter of criminal justice.

>> No.3061800

>>3061771

The regulation in third world countries rapes first would country regulations. Speaking is always regulated, press is always regulated, property is heavily regulated, businesses are heavily regulated, etc.

>> No.3061814

>>3061756

What? People come into stores wanting particular things all the time. This example assumes the person came in and said, what are the best shoes for running you have. I'm training for a marathon. Surely you can see tons of examples where people look for products for particular use, and in which certain products apply themselves better to that use.

>> No.3061822

>>3061781

People misuse weapons irrationally right now, every single day.

Who are you to pick what the consumer actually wants? Your choice of wanting the better running shoe regardless of looks and whatnot has not one fuckall thing to do with me or every other consumer.

>>3061797

That happens right now anyway.

>> No.3061823

>>3061800
Eh.

Libertarians just hate regulations, don't they?

>> No.3061829

>>3061724
>conspicuous consumption

>> No.3061830

You fellows will be at this forever with liberty. He is insane, and completely unworkable. Its like a conversation from hell, where ever reply from him only brings you farther from a conclusion that you were before. I have attempted to communicate with him before.

>> No.3061837

>>3061814

If they truly wanted the best shoe, they would ask only for that and buy the best running shoe. They were not forced, coerced, or defrauded into buying the Nike shoes.

>> No.3061855
File: 514 KB, 800x518, Inside-a-Coffee-Shop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061855

>>3061724
They want to be smart manipulators.

Which is why people buy for brand.

Theres not a whole lot you can do when society will always rely on superficial assessment of individuals.

Hell, when was the last time you asked the name of the guy at mcdonalds? You don't, do you? He wears his uniform, which dictates his function, which allows you to seal yourself from having to do anything but generalize about his existence.

This is human psychology.

>> No.3061857

>>3061823

They hate force, sure.

>>3061830

Or you simply cannot put forth sound arguments.

>> No.3061870

>>3061822

but you're removing the alternative.

if people have no other way of dispensing justice, they will just have to trust their gut feeling and kill the suspect in most cases without solid evidence since there no way to do advanced analysis (ever met someone who actually had a crime lab at his home?) and there is no infrastructure to house criminals.

just wishing there is no police because they aren't 100% efficient at their job is juvenile.

>> No.3061878

>>3061837

Holy shit, that's the point of this. The example was that the person wants the best running shoe, and get Nike, because everyone thinks Nike is the best when X is actually better. Nike just out-advertised their way to success, they didn't make a better product.

>> No.3061885

>>3061857

Did you ever figure out whether you prefer Bundle A or Bundle B? We need a basic common understanding of economics before we can talk about anything.

>> No.3061890

>>3061870

Labs are privately owned quite often.

My problem with the police comes from the force, fraud, and coercion used to maintain them and the failure of them to do their "job."

>> No.3061893

>>3061855

That's not true.

By buying brand people are making a known choice.

If you want a cup of coffee Starbucks may not be the best cup out there... but you know it's OK and you know what to expect when you get it. It's a known quantity.

With all the choices around people want known quantities.

>> No.3061896

>>3061885
>meta irony
>Irony about irony
>rain on your wedding day

>> No.3061904

>>3061878

Without force, coercion, or fraud they got what they wanted. Wahhh, I am at the mercy of those that advertise of a television I chose to use during a commercial I chose to watch, is not a valid argument in any sense of the word,

>>3061885

Correlate your bundles to a specific economic theory, specific reasoning, or specific point.

>> No.3061906
File: 71 KB, 357x290, 1273466965825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3061906

>>3061896

Oh shush.

>> No.3061957

>>3059984
...I just can't help myself. I need to say it. There's an app for that.
Okay. Serious conversation time. It's out of my system.

>>3061099
I doubt this. Why? Input materials. We can 3D print from a few materials at varying cost (organic starches, themoplastics/thermosets, lego blocks...)
Sometimes though you need things like powdered metal sintering processes (many cheap metal appliances), or more prohibitively formed/forged metals molded plastics.

Each manufacturing process gives different results. For example, screws that are drawn and formed to preserve the grain boundaries are much stronger than screws that have their threads cut after cooling.

3D printing will be an amazing advance and I'm sure it will bring many awesome changes, but I don't think it's going to revolutionize everything.
</rain on parade>

>> No.3061984

>>3061904

Anyone can answer this.

Bundle A (your car is stolen, you find $20)
Bundle B (your car is stolen, you lose $20)

It doesnt take any economic theory, or any kind of degree in economics. Everyone can answer this. You should too. There is no "correlating to a specific economic theory" or any other bullshit youll say to avoid the question and further propagate this lie that you have a degree.

>> No.3061990

Thats the way the world works, and it roots itself from how human nature is.
What you basically do as an early adopter is you finance all the research and development that went into developing the product. This is how the cycle works and without this you would likely get less money for research, and in turn slower technological progress.
If you got a better system, then lets hear it, but it has to make sure it satisfies all these constraints, and in turn makes progress happen faster.

>> No.3061995

>>3061984

There is no motivation to choose. Motivate me.

>> No.3061996

>>3061728
4/10
I raged a little bit there.

>> No.3062034

>>3061995

See this is what I mean.

What the hell are you talking about? What the fuck does that mean? Motivation is not a factor here. You could have 0 motivation and still have preferences. It is assumed that there is some amount of utility. Besides, I am asking you personally, you dont need to abstract this into some weird hypothetical reality. If you had these choices, in real life, what would YOU choose? You have motivation, and you have preferences, you should be able to pick one.

>> No.3062041

>>3061890

running a small scale lab with all the high-tech equipment for accurate genetic evidence collection/processing costs around 1 mill/year and most people don't have that kind of money to do it or have the expertise. i understand your gripe with the current police system and it's failures but that is not a reason to completely do away with it. i live in a country where the police is actually useful and does it's job well.

>> No.3062050

>>3062034

I need to know what you feel answer a and b means in relevance to the post you addressed this to.

My preferences would vary depending on the meaning of each answer of course.

>> No.3062063

>>3062041

A lot of people do not need the money for a lab to process information.

I very highly doubt you do.

>> No.3062066
File: 290 KB, 549x541, paul_willeax5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062066

>>3062050

>mfw

Okay Im done again.

What does "meaning" mean? I said, you could either have your car stolen, and make $20, or have your car stolen and lose $20. Do those works make sense? I cant put more meaning into those words that what they mean.

>> No.3062081

>>3062066

I am asking what you think logically follows in terms of which answer I choose. If I choose A, then what? If I choose B, then what? Do not pretend the answer has no following for you.

>> No.3062095
File: 23 KB, 458x350, joke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062095

>>3061893
But you're just exchanging one value for another.

I'll pay an extra dollar for a shitty product if it helps me land a better paying job/wife/blow job/insert non fungible commodity.

People don't rationalize from an early age why they want nikes, but they do become accustomed to the societal feedback of buying nikes.

And if it's easy to prove that the majority of humans make superficial decisions about the individuals they meet, then all a consumer is doing is exchanging the intrinsic value of a product for an extrinstic value.

You can argue it's irrational for someone to do that as an external observer, but if you knew the difference between landing a promotion was the brand of your sox, you'd make the rational choice.

All I gots to say, is that society forms a construct of a maze, and whether you want to admit it or not, you're running through an arbitrary set of obstacles to determine your merit.

So if I told you that I would hire you if you had brand name sox, would you go out and buy those sox?

Should I ignore the physical reality of superficial/highly efficient aggregate classification of human psychology, for an ideological stance that has no perfect outcome?

>> No.3062128
File: 11 KB, 400x291, 1304477935811.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3062128

>>3062095

Unfortunately true.

>> No.3062143

man corporations must have so much data in regards to sociology and psychology. imagine if honest people got a hold on some of that...

>> No.3062166

>>3062143
They'd be corrupted or disillusioned.

>minds, how do they work?

>?FUCJEMRFRGVWQEROGWQERJG -- no carrier

>> No.3062172

>>3062143

> implying corporations means dishonest

>> No.3062179

>>3061610
The ipad is pretty much the definition of planned obsolescense. Once they start selling cellphones with foldable touchscreens there's really no market for pads anymore. Apple/Google/others are basically positioning themselves so that when foldout screens arrive they have a ready library of software to work with the cellphones.

>> No.3062187

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/07/pandora-mobile-app-found-to-be-sending-birth-date-gender-and-lo/

>collecting data on individuals location
>sending this to ad agencies

>> No.3062201

>>3062172

corporations have profit underlying all other objectives
>honest people=non objective observers

>> No.3062208

>>3062063

what is your alternative then, people just go around carrying weapons, killing when they see fit?

how do you handle crimes that don't warrant death?
where are you going to put them?
are you just going to kill them, where is the justice in that?
how do you prove that some guy raped a woman, just by believing whatever the victim says, do you think her husband/father/brother is capable of dealing with it rationally?

arming citizens against home invasions and robbery are totally different from just doing away with the justice system. change is necessary, yes, but removing a huge part of the government just hoping the problem will go away is not the way.

>> No.3062210

>>3062201

> implying profit is dishonest

>> No.3062218

>>3062210
im not implying that

im implying observing non objectively is honest

>> No.3062237

>>3062201
better term colloquially/historically would be uninterested parties

>> No.3062238

>>3062208

I would offer Liberty as my wanted suggestion.

Reimbursement.
I won't put them anywhere.
I care nothing about justice as it is too subjective.
Rape cases are almost always he said, she said. Father and brother savageness is not my concern. I would hope they were human.

The police, which are there as an arm of new regulations, are the problem. Regulations are always the problem.

>> No.3062250

>>3062187
i see only advantages - in terms of economy we need to maximise our consumption if we want to live well

>> No.3062276

>>3062250
>>3062250
yea but dont you think we could learn something else other than... "oh kids of age 19 like to shop at target"

>> No.3062277

>>3061561
whats your opinion about RFID chip, /sci/entists?

>> No.3062285

>>3062277

Remove gubbmint, see if the market wants them.

>> No.3062292

>>3062276
>something else
be more specific

>> No.3062314

How bad was the first ipads battery if the second one advertises that the battery lasts 10 hours?

>> No.3062323

>>3062292
>>3062292
i believe advancements to psychology could be gained from such information. for example how media panic may influence peoples actions or something of that nature
... i mean knowing age gender and location on such a scale as that would tell us SOMETHING

>> No.3062327

>>3062314

Same battery life as the first version.

>> No.3063062

>>3062238
>>The police, which are there as an arm of new regulations, are the problem. Regulations are always the problem.
>>Regulation are always the problem.

yes, ok, we get it

you
don't
like
regulations

>> No.3063127

Steve Jobs is a Nigger!!!!!!

enjoy your butt hurt you silly ipad and iphone niggers.

>> No.3063143

Come on guys, stop being bitter and grab a cool glass of Coca-Cola™. Sure, it's just flavored sugar water that costs us a few cents a can to manufacture, but you can't get that authentic Coca-Cola™ feel with any other drink!

>> No.3063841
File: 22 KB, 332x400, 1285658494630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3063841

>buy two ipads
>multitask
>laughingstevejobs.jpg

>> No.3063904

>>3063062

I much prefer consent.

>> No.3064104

Liberty is a troll, surely. Liberty, you don't want to answer resident economist's question because you're worried you're going to make a mistake: you're worried you'll pick the wrong answer and it will conflict with your beliefs and you'll lose the argument. Guess what? If, with no knowledge of the results, you pick the 'wrong' one, you have still contradicted your beliefs. You can't just go back and say 'oh well I didn't mean it like that then no no ad hoc. I don't know where he's going with that question so maybe it will turn out to be a flawed analysis, but asking 'what the question means' shows that you just want to try to drag out the conversation as a troll or a coward would. I doubt you have a degree in economics; I doubt you've even had a part time job.

>> No.3064123

>>3059969
/sci/ is /r9k/ now, take a look around.