It goes like this.
1). The company depended on already pasteurized milk to make the yogurt
2). Regulations required them to pasteurize the milk themselves.
3). Repasteurizing milk violates another regulation.
Therefor
STREEeeeeep
Of course Red Tape kills everything good. By chance is it an Organic product?
Ummm.... Why don't they just buy unpasturized milk and then pasturize it themselves...
You mean that people are allowed to sell unpasteurized dairy products? If that was so, it wouldn't likely be a problem in the first place.
There's a difference between selling to people for consumption and selling to people for production.
Do you have a copy of the regulation? The only inference that I've seen just said dairy products. Neither of us can be sure that the regulation allows for an exception if sold for production reasons without a copy of the law. Of course if their is that doesn't mean that there is a market for unpasteurized milk, which would be necessary for it to be bough as easy as pasteurized milk.
Or they had a contract with their milk supplier.
This is a small-time artisan, I doubt she'd even be able to get machinery going to pasteurize her own milk. And she'd have to get it from a dairy-farm, which might not even be in the area.
Simple solution: Move the company to Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon.
Packing up and moving... Yeah, I'm sure thats real easy for a small business owner in the red.
And some people wonder why I hear The Imperial March playing in my head when I hear of stuff like this.
www.prisonplanet.tv FTW!
...
Or they had a contract with their milk supplier.
When I become president the first thing I'm going to do is outlaw exclusivity contracts. If you can't compete get out of the market!
...
Or they had a contract with their milk supplier.
When I become president the first thing I'm going to do is outlaw exclusivity contracts. If you can't compete get out of the market!
Go ahead. You might run into some small problems. One being that businesses have the right to conduct business with whoever they please and it's not the government's place to tell them that they can't always buy from the same supplier, and the other being that the President doesn't actually make laws.
Well, you know, they could cool the milk, thereby resurrecting the killed bacteria.
I'm pretty sure you have to put it out in a storm to be hit by lightning for that to occur.
And some people wonder why I hear The Imperial March playing in my head when I hear of stuff like this.
I hear Yackity Sax.
...
Or they had a contract with their milk supplier.
When I become president the first thing I'm going to do is outlaw exclusivity contracts. If you can't compete get out of the market!
Go ahead. You might run into some small problems. One being that businesses have the right to conduct business with whoever they please and it's not the government's place to tell them that they can't always buy from the same supplier, and the other being that the President doesn't actually make laws.
You misunderstand me. They can buy from the same company if they want. I'd be removing the REQUIREMENT that they buy from the same company all the time (which is stipulated in an exclusivity contract). Have you seen the catalogs at some businesses. They get an exclusivity contract and have to buy office supplies at 10x the price you can get them for at retail stores...
You misunderstand me. They can buy from the same company if they want. I'd be removing the REQUIREMENT that they buy from the same company all the time (which is stipulated in an exclusivity contract). Have you seen the catalogs at some businesses. They get an exclusivity contract and have to buy office supplies at 10x the price you can get them for at retail stores...
My apologies, I did misunderstand you. Of course my own view on this is that if you sign a contract like that then you are a ****ing idiot. For example, I see the government get gouged like that all the time...
I think you forget the part where anyone that enters into an exclusive contract does so willingly. Even if that part of the contract is unfavorable to them, they made the decision, of their own free will, to enter into it, typically for some benefit (perceived or otherwise) in some area.
No usually its some office intern that is in the sales department taking a deal, its usually not the company or the decision makers...
Oh, and stupidity is not an excuse!!!
No usually its some office intern that is in the sales department taking a deal, its usually not the company or the decision makers...
Where do you work that allows office interns to enter into legally binding contracts on behalf of the company? It also wouldn't be the sales department, it would be their acquisition/logistics department.
Oh, and stupidity is not an excuse!!!
I absolutely agree. Stupidity does not excuse someone not accepting responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
No usually its some office intern that is in the sales department taking a deal, its usually not the company or the decision makers...
Where do you work that allows office interns to enter into legally binding contracts on behalf of the company? It also wouldn't be the sales department, it would be their acquisition/logistics department.Oh, and stupidity is not an excuse!!!
I absolutely agree. Stupidity does not excuse someone not accepting responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Ok, how bout we just limit it to government agencies. If you work for the government you are not allowed to sign an exclusivity contract. That way we are protected from the stupidity of the government you are so keen on pointing out...
Ok, how bout we just limit it to government agencies. If you work for the government you are not allowed to sign an exclusivity contract. That way we are protected from the stupidity of the government you are so keen on pointing out...
I'd be all for it (since in this case the entire country pays for their stupidity) but that's not actually the problem. The contracts aren't technically exclusivity contracts, but the way many of them are set up, along with the government's own red tape and ridiculous policies that make them that way in practice.
For example, let's look at one of the robots being used for bomb disposal. The Talon robot costs well over $100,000.00 (how much more depends on the specific model and configuration). It comes with a $10,000 battery. The battery is designed in such a manner that if it is plugged in, even if the robot is turned off, it continues to drain. If it drains beyond a certain voltage, it cannot be recharged and a new battery must be purchased (the drain is steady enough that if you have a charged battery plugged in during the day and don't unplug it, the battery will be dead the next morning).
Now you would think that it would be easy to simply design a new battery (this did eventually happen but it was almost stopped several times). The problem is that in the twisted nightmare of bureaucracy that is required, an accessory for a certain item is supposed to be certified by the vendor (in this case the robot manufacturer) for safety. Well the company doesn't want to fix the problem themselves because the "problem" brings them lots of money. They don't want to approve someone else's fix for the same reason. So they will say things like "it could start the robot on fire" (they get away with that because since they haven't tested it, "could" falls within the realm of possiblity and that possibility isn't disproven).
The military could go to a different robot entirely, but not many people make robots that the soldiers find acceptable for use in the current theaters of operation. Even if they could find one, a lot of other companies are gouging the government just as bad. Then in this case since it's a standard item for bomb disposal, which is a joint service venture, all four services would have to convene a board to discuss and vote on it. Then there is the nightmare that is the contract bidding and approval process. But then that new robot needs safety assessments and certifications, it needs a program manager to accept that item and make it an official military program, it needs a fielding and sustainment plan, basically there's so much work, red tape, and money that has to be thrown at it that people generally find it easier to stick with the status quo. And for those program managers (which have to accept the item) there is incentive to keep the more expensive model because on their evaluations (which are the key factor in determining promotions), part of their rating is the dollar value of equipment that they manage.
The military could design its own robot, but it needs a formal requirement and theres a ridiculously long process (one that takes years to complete, and in this day in age robotics are changing faster than that, not to mention the war could be over by then), and you still need to go through all the stuff that I mentioned in the last paragraph. And somewhere along the line, someone will probably screw it up.
So it's not the contract itself that ends up making it exclusive, just the reality of the military acquisition process. That's where a serious overhaul is needed.
No usually its some office intern that is in the sales department taking a deal, its usually not the company or the decision makers...
In that case...
Oh, and stupidity is not an excuse!!!
I mean seriously, if you have your intern signing contracts for you without consulting before hand... well, stupidity is not an excuse.
Ok, how bout we just limit it to government agencies. If you work for the government you are not allowed to sign an exclusivity contract. That way we are protected from the stupidity of the government you are so keen on pointing out...
Now your talking sense.
(assuming you mean in an offical capacity. If the local sherif wants to sign an exclusive contact with his cable provider, whatever, his business)
Ok, how bout we just limit it to government agencies. If you work for the government you are not allowed to sign an exclusivity contract. That way we are protected from the stupidity of the government you are so keen on pointing out...
I'd be all for it (since in this case the entire country pays for their stupidity) but that's not actually the problem. The contracts aren't technically exclusivity contracts, but the way many of them are set up, along with the government's own red tape and ridiculous policies that make them that way in practice.
For example, let's look at one of the robots being used for bomb disposal. The Talon robot costs well over $100,000.00 (how much more depends on the specific model and configuration). It comes with a $10,000 battery. The battery is designed in such a manner that if it is plugged in, even if the robot is turned off, it continues to drain. If it drains beyond a certain voltage, it cannot be recharged and a new battery must be purchased (the drain is steady enough that if you have a charged battery plugged in during the day and don't unplug it, the battery will be dead the next morning).
Now you would think that it would be easy to simply design a new battery (this did eventually happen but it was almost stopped several times). The problem is that in the twisted nightmare of bureaucracy that is required, an accessory for a certain item is supposed to be certified by the vendor (in this case the robot manufacturer) for safety. Well the company doesn't want to fix the problem themselves because the "problem" brings them lots of money. They don't want to approve someone else's fix for the same reason. So they will say things like "it could start the robot on fire" (they get away with that because since they haven't tested it, "could" falls within the realm of possiblity and that possibility isn't disproven).
The military could go to a different robot entirely, but not many people make robots that the soldiers find acceptable for use in the current theaters of operation. Even if they could find one, a lot of other companies are gouging the government just as bad. Then in this case since it's a standard item for bomb disposal, which is a joint service venture, all four services would have to convene a board to discuss and vote on it. Then there is the nightmare that is the contract bidding and approval process. But then that new robot needs safety assessments and certifications, it needs a program manager to accept that item and make it an official military program, it needs a fielding and sustainment plan, basically there's so much work, red tape, and money that has to be thrown at it that people generally find it easier to stick with the status quo. And for those program managers (which have to accept the item) there is incentive to keep the more expensive model because on their evaluations (which are the key factor in determining promotions), part of their rating is the dollar value of equipment that they manage.
The military could design its own robot, but it needs a formal requirement and theres a ridiculously long process (one that takes years to complete, and in this day in age robotics are changing faster than that, not to mention the war could be over by then), and you still need to go through all the stuff that I mentioned in the last paragraph. And somewhere along the line, someone will probably screw it up.
So it's not the contract itself that ends up making it exclusive, just the reality of the military acquisition process. That's where a serious overhaul is needed.
Wow... Maybe we need to get a group of citizens together to show the government how they could restructure all of this and get rid of all the red tape and possibly save the taxpayers millions or trillions of dollars. We now have computers to track everything so we can do away with the cumbersome Hitler inspired 'everything must be in writing' paperwork...
Ok, how bout we just limit it to government agencies. If you work for the government you are not allowed to sign an exclusivity contract. That way we are protected from the stupidity of the government you are so keen on pointing out...
Now your talking sense.
(assuming you mean in an offical capacity. If the local sherif wants to sign an exclusive contact with his cable provider, whatever, his business)
Wow... Maybe we need to get a group of citizens together to show the government how they could restructure all of this and get rid of all the red tape and possibly save the taxpayers millions or trillions of dollars. We now have computers to track everything so we can do away with the cumbersome Hitler inspired 'everything must be in writing' paperwork...
Computers just increased the paperwork load. But yeah, there has to be a better way to do things. I'm sure plenty of businesses have a better model. Either that or capitalism is doomed.
We now have computers to track everything so we can do away with the cumbersome Hitler inspired 'everything must be in writing' paperwork...
Really? Really?
I got in an argument with someone from American Airlines after they lost my bag. Their system said it had been delivered two days ago. When I told them that it had in fact not been delivered to me, as I did not have it, I checked with the hotel front desk repeatedly, and I had checked with the airline earlier that same day, yet the response to all of that was, "Well the computer doesn't lie."
Besides, aren't you at all concerned about identity theft with all of your personal information being in one central location and networked across the country? Or with the evil shadow government having access to everything about you?
If your mother didn't present proof, then how would they know the computer was right? Even if a comprehensive database was maintained, it could easily be populated incorrectly or not updated when something changed. Also, when you submit proof of something, you are verifying that the information you are providing is true, so you can be held liable in the case of fraud. If you simply gave them your name and SSN and let the computer do the rest, and the computer was wrong, you could claim complete ignorance and not be liable at all. In any case, a lot of times forms can be submitted electronically, but they still have to be filled out. Computers cut down on paper, but not on paperwork. If anything, they create more of it.
I got in an argument with someone from American Airlines after they lost my bag. Their system said it had been delivered two days ago. When I told them that it had in fact not been delivered to me, as I did not have it, I checked with the hotel front desk repeatedly, and I had checked with the airline earlier that same day, yet the response to all of that was, "Well the computer doesn't lie."
Besides, aren't you at all concerned about identity theft with all of your personal information being in one central location and networked across the country? Or with the evil shadow government having access to everything about you?
You have some good points, but I'd much rather pay 10% less taxes and have to argue with someone over getting something wrong and eventually getting it sorted out to what we have now.
I am concerned with identity theft, but with the likes of Lockheed Martin getting hacked there's not much that can be done (well except firing the incompetent people responsible, or declaring war on yet another country rich with minerals or oil).
If your mother didn't present proof, then how would they know the computer was right? Even if a comprehensive database was maintained, it could easily be populated incorrectly or not updated when something changed. Also, when you submit proof of something, you are verifying that the information you are providing is true, so you can be held liable in the case of fraud. If you simply gave them your name and SSN and let the computer do the rest, and the computer was wrong, you could claim complete ignorance and not be liable at all. In any case, a lot of times forms can be submitted electronically, but they still have to be filled out. Computers cut down on paper, but not on paperwork. If anything, they create more of it.
I got in an argument with someone from American Airlines after they lost my bag. Their system said it had been delivered two days ago. When I told them that it had in fact not been delivered to me, as I did not have it, I checked with the hotel front desk repeatedly, and I had checked with the airline earlier that same day, yet the response to all of that was, "Well the computer doesn't lie."
Besides, aren't you at all concerned about identity theft with all of your personal information being in one central location and networked across the country? Or with the evil shadow government having access to everything about you?
Oh and she would present a photo ID and her SS Card. That would prove its her. What happened is she literally drove to about 4 different government agencies picked up paperwork that they printed out and then went back to the housing authority and handed it to them. That's what is so maddening about it. They had to print it out to give it to her...