Skybuck's Payment Method to Develop Software On Time.

[Skybuck Flying]

Hello,

If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
time:

Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.

Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount of money
back to the company.

Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X ammount of bonus
money from the company. (Optional).

I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

This will make the software programmer feel involved and will give
incencitives to perform on time if they wanna get rich ! ;) =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

[Xavier Roche]

Le 10/11/2013 12:52, Skybuck Flying a écrit :
> I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

Yeah sure, ugly code written as fast as possible is probably the solution!

(Not sure if troll or not.)

[ralph]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:52:41 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"

<Window...@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
>software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
>time:
>
>Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.
>

"Salary" floats with employee satisfaction. The importance of Salary
will fall to 3rd or 4th if an employee is satisfied with his over-all
work experience. It rises to 1st if an employee is generally
unsatisfied.

Thus getting maximum performance is seldom directly related to salary
- as long as the salary is competitive for your area.

>Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount of money
>back to the company.
>

Need to run this past your lawyers. Such a scheme is illegal in many
states. In any case the scheme will have to be finely defined and
carefully administrated. ANY ambiguity, ANY hint of unfair practice,
will lead to a complaint you will not only lose, but likely be
penalized for.

>Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X ammount of bonus
>money from the company. (Optional).
>

Bonuses are always of interest to an employee - but again have to be
clearly defined and fairly administrated, or you risk negatively
impacting an otherwise over-all positive work experience.

>I am pretty sure this will work wonders.
>

Highly doubtful.

Look at it this way: Your present salary structure likely had little
impact on why you were late before, (assuming you are paying a
competitive wage, thus employing good personnel), so why would
fiddling with it lead to any improvement?

Giving a race horse extra sugar or oats will not help getting him to
the finish line sooner if the course remains muddy, full of potholes,
uneven, and circuitous.

Look elsewhere. Find out where and why your deliveries are not timely.
Employ better drainage, fill in the pot holes, smooth out the ground,
straighten the course.

It is also possible your schedule is simply unreasonable for the
resources on hand.

>This will make the software programmer feel involved and will give
>incencitives to perform on time if they wanna get rich ! ;) =D
>

If only it was that simple.

-ralph

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.lang.c Skybuck Flying <Window...@dreampc2006.com> wrote:

> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
> software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
> time:

A whole book has been written on this problem, called
"Mythical Man Month".

You should read it.

-- glen

[Richard]

A lot of which has been debunked too.

--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c

[Raymond Wiker]

Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> writes:

> glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>> In comp.lang.c Skybuck Flying <Window...@dreampc2006.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
>>> software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
>>> time:
>>
>> A whole book has been written on this problem, called
>> "Mythical Man Month".
>>
>> You should read it.
>>
>> -- glen
>
> A lot of which has been debunked too.

Which doesn't mean that Skybuck shouldn't study the existing literature
before he comes up with any half-baked[1] theories of his own.

Footnotes:
[1] Possibly a generous estimate.

[Robert Miles]

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:52:41 AM UTC-6, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
> software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
> time:

So you want software that is written well before the deadline but so hard to test that it will still contain many bugs well after the deadline?

[bert]

On Sunday, 10 November 2013 11:52:41 UTC, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
> software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
> time:

You can achieve any deadline at all, simply by not meeting the
specifications on functionality and/or on quality. Indeed, you
can achieve any two of those by not meeting the third of them.
--

[Geoff]

The magic triangle. Cheap, fast, correct. Pick any two.

[nick.keig...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 10 November 2013 11:52:41 UTC, Skybuck Flying wrote:

fix priced contract iff fixed requirements

[I recomend you use some sort of formal specification (I quite like VDM)]
[don't forget to specify timing requirements, memory occupancy etc.]
[better agree the hardware platform in advance]

Note by nailing the requirement down this well you remove some of the benefits of implementing your system in software in the first place

[Gordon Burditt]

> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
> software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
> time:
>
> Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.
>
> Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount of money
> back to the company.
>
> Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X ammount of bonus
> money from the company. (Optional).

You forgot to say anything about bugs, and a detailed specification
that doesn't keep changing. If it doesn't have to work correctly,
any program can run infinitely fast in 0 bytes of memory running
on an ATtiny25 (2kB program space, 128 bytes of RAM, no integer
multiply instruction, and no 16-bit add instruction. Yes, avr-gcc
will generate code for it. The code for floating-point might even
fit in some of its larger-memory cousins.)

> I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

You will probably get results like the Affordable Healthcare
"Marketplace" web site that even President Obama called a "disaster".
(Regardless of what you think of the *law* (and debate about that
here is off-topic), the *web site* implemention was/is horrible).
*WAY* Under capacity. Bugs galore. The original schedule was
likely hopelessly optimistic. Many people couldn't create accounts.
Some parts weren't deployed because the managers involved couldn't
in good conscience do it. Most of it was untested. Tech support's
answers for most problems was: "Well, keep trying and it might work
eventually" or "Turn off your pop-up blocker" even after the described
behavior shows that pop-ups are working.

The likely result is that the software will be declared ready on
time or earlier, whether it compiles or not. It might even be a
floppy copy of MS-DOS 1.2 fished out of a toilet and some half-eaten
moldy pieces of pizza.

> This will make the software programmer feel involved and will give
> incencitives to perform on time if they wanna get rich ! ;) =D

If the software is late and appears to be getting later, there is
a strong incentive for your programmers to quit and keep what salary
they've gotten so far, especially if the part of the software they
are working on is not what's holding things up.

If you're dealing with a small company where any programmer can
jump in and work on any part of the software having problems, without
personalities getting in the way, your incentives might work. In
a large company, you're likely to be told that programmers and
testers can't talk to one another except through formal defect
report channels. You're supposed to work on your part of the project
and refrain from butting in to other parts.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:04:26 AM UTC-8, Xavier Roche wrote:
> Le 10/11/2013 12:52, Skybuck Flying a écrit :
> > I am pretty sure this will work wonders.
> Yeah sure, ugly code written as fast as possible is probably the solution!

An old saying "What gets rewarded gets done"

But from "The Official Rules":
"Whatever metric is used to calculate a reward to a person will be manipulated to benefit that person to the point that it no longer serves as a reasonable measurement of the reward due that person."

My personal experience is that you should use "Test cases passed" to set the delivery date. You should assume that the test cases are exponentially distributed in difficulty and required effort and that people will do the easiest ones first.

[Mike Stump]

In article <1MGdnU8OgNL9rxHP...@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>*WAY* Under capacity.

This is like saying you need a faster computer to make the program
that infinite loops run faster. Fundamentally flawed.

Hint, there are those of us that can make a server handle a transation
load of 10,000 a second, and there are those of us that are lucky to
hit 3. They had to sign up 6 people in a week. If their system was
overloaded handling a load of 6 a week, well, let me just say, the
problem wasn't capacity.

>The original schedule was likely hopelessly optimistic.

$1B and 3 years? You know, a group of 3 guys, working less than a
week came up with a better web site that does the same thing that
works well, for, well, nothing.

>Many people couldn't create accounts.

See, that's the problem right there. We don't want to create an
account, we want to see our buying choices, get information, then just
buy a product if we so choose. An account if fine for something like
iTunes where you want to buy 20 things a month, and not have to
re-enter any details, like shipping address, cc, name.

[osmium]

"Gordon Burditt" wrote:

> Tech support's
> answers for most problems was: "Well, keep trying and it might work
> eventually" or "Turn off your pop-up blocker" even after the described
> behavior shows that pop-ups are working.

My favorite advice was "Delete your cookies" !!!

[Ken Brody]

On 11/21/2013 4:15 AM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
[...]

> An old saying "What gets rewarded gets done"
>
> But from "The Official Rules": "Whatever metric is used to calculate a
> reward to a person will be manipulated to benefit that person to the
> point that it no longer serves as a reasonable measurement of the reward
> due that person."

Lines of code. (Comments, blank lines, and #includes don't count -- we're
on to your little tricks!)

#include <stdio.h>

int
main(
int
argc,
char
*
argv
[]
)
{
printf(
"Hello, "
"world."
"\n"
);
return(
EXIT_SUCCESS
);
)

> My personal experience is that you should use "Test cases passed" to set
> the delivery date. You should assume that the test cases are
> exponentially distributed in difficulty and required effort and that
> people will do the easiest ones first.

Test case 1: Code compiles without fatal errors.

Test case 2: Code compiles without warnings, using default settings.

Test case 3: Code compiles without warnings, with warnings set to max.

Test case 4: Program links without fatal errors.

Test case 5: Program links without warnings.

...

Test case 42: Program contains zero defects.

[Phil Carmody]

Ken Brody <kenb...@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 11/21/2013 4:15 AM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
> [...]
> > An old saying "What gets rewarded gets done"
> >
> > But from "The Official Rules": "Whatever metric is used to calculate a
> > reward to a person will be manipulated to benefit that person to the
> > point that it no longer serves as a reasonable measurement of the reward
> > due that person."
>
> Lines of code. (Comments, blank lines, and #includes don't count --
> we're on to your little tricks!)
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int
> main(
> int
> argc,
> char
> *
> argv
> []
> )
> {
> printf(
> "Hello, "
> "world."
> "\n"
> );

Not checking the return value of a function that could fail

> return(
> EXIT_SUCCESS
> );
> )
>
> > My personal experience is that you should use "Test cases passed" to set
> > the delivery date. You should assume that the test cases are
> > exponentially distributed in difficulty and required effort and that
> > people will do the easiest ones first.
>
> Test case 1: Code compiles without fatal errors.
>
> Test case 2: Code compiles without warnings, using default settings.
>
> Test case 3: Code compiles without warnings, with warnings set to max.

Should be flagged here.

However, your point was made.

> Test case 4: Program links without fatal errors.
>
> Test case 5: Program links without warnings.
>
> ...
>
> Test case 42: Program contains zero defects.

--
The list of trusted root authorities in your browser included the
United Arab Emirates-based Etisalat, which was caught secretly
uploading spyware onto 100,000 customers' BlackBerries.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/blackberry-spies/

[Ken Brody]

On 11/23/2013 8:17 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Ken Brody <kenb...@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On 11/21/2013 4:15 AM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
>> [...]
>>> An old saying "What gets rewarded gets done"
>>>
>>> But from "The Official Rules": "Whatever metric is used to calculate a
>>> reward to a person will be manipulated to benefit that person to the
>>> point that it no longer serves as a reasonable measurement of the reward
>>> due that person."
>>
>> Lines of code. (Comments, blank lines, and #includes don't count --
>> we're on to your little tricks!)

[...]

>> printf(
>> "Hello, "
>> "world."
>> "\n"
>> );
>
> Not checking the return value of a function that could fail

Submit a bug report. We'll fix that in the 2.0 release.

[...]

>> Test case 3: Code compiles without warnings, with warnings set to max.
>
> Should be flagged here.
>
> However, your point was made.

:-)

[Gordon Burditt]

>>*WAY* Under capacity.
>
> This is like saying you need a faster computer to make the program
> that infinite loops run faster. Fundamentally flawed.

> Hint, there are those of us that can make a server handle a transation
> load of 10,000 a second, and there are those of us that are lucky to
> hit 3. They had to sign up 6 people in a week. If their system was

They have signed up a lot more than 6 people in a week. The latest
figure is something like 28,000 in about 60 days (it might be an
old number reflecting, say, 45 days), and the administration was
saying that's way lower than expected.

Transaction loads aren't the issue when the front page takes a full
minute to load (before you can even get to a transaction). Then
they put a "wait" screen in front of it to limit users (much like
limiting cars entering a highway to x per minute at each entrance
ramp) which at times took over an hour (and this was at the well-known
(NOT!) peak load time of 3AM!).

> overloaded handling a load of 6 a week, well, let me just say, the
> problem wasn't capacity.
>
>>The original schedule was likely hopelessly optimistic.
>
> $1B and 3 years?

You can't use the Affordable Health Care Act as a web design.
And the decisions made after the law was passed changed often.

It probably took at least a year to figure out a list of all the
necessary information to compute a subsidy, much less a formula
to do the computation.

> You know, a group of 3 guys, working less than a
> week came up with a better web site that does the same thing that
> works well, for, well, nothing.
>
>>Many people couldn't create accounts.
>
> See, that's the problem right there. We don't want to create an
> account, we want to see our buying choices, get information, then just

In order to see your choices, you need prices for *you*, right?
*Correct* prices. Well, the prices (including the effect of a
subsidy) are determined by a bunch of information that they were
estimating takes half an hour to enter and maybe an hour of research
on the part of the user to find that information. Plus they get a
whole bunch more info from the IRS. That part of the design,
codified in law, is a major part of the problem. The law makes
computing a correct price *HARD*. What user would tolerate entering
all that information every time they went to the web site?

As it stands, without logging in, they are giving out price info
(er, lies) for two "ages": under 50 and over 50. That isn't what
you can actually buy, though.

> buy a product if we so choose.

The law makes a strong effort to force that choice.

> An account if fine for something like
> iTunes where you want to buy 20 things a month, and not have to
> re-enter any details, like shipping address, cc, name.

When the details you have to re-enter are more like "type in your last
tax return (all of it) and your credit report", the preference
changes quickly. I believe it is also intended that you come back to
the website around Dec. 2014 to get your insurance for 2015.

Another indication of a flawed design codified into law: part of
the info required is *estimated* 2014 income. IMHO, asking
for estimates of something in the future on a Federal website ought
to be a felony, as should giving such an estimate.

[j...@mdfs.net]

Skybuck Flying wrote:
> Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X amount of bonus

> money from the company. (Optional).

If it's on time it's on time. From context you mean "early".

jgh

[Mike Stump]

In article <7uCdna1uWoUy-wfP...@posted.internetamerica>,

Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>They have signed up a lot more than 6 people in a week.

:-) Ok, the number was a bit more. 5 people per minute, according to
one number (don't know if I should trust it or not) I saw. My point
remains.

>The latest figure is something like 28,000 in about 60 days (it might
>be an old number reflecting, say, 45 days), and the administration
>was saying that's way lower than expected.

Gosh, this this drops us down to 19 an hour. Google handles 59,000 a
second, and that is the result of searching all web sites on the
planet for the exact thing the person was searching for.

>Transaction loads aren't the issue when the front page takes a full
>minute to load

And there is yet another issue right there. Any decent CDN can scale
to the required they needed. google can engineer a web site that
loads quickly and yet, is usable.

I just timed it, it seemed to take 1/2 a second. So, either you are
wrong, or, or the issue was trivial enough to fix, to have fixed it.

>(before you can even get to a transaction). Then they put a "wait"
>screen in front

I see no wait screen now. I dived into the site, and didn't see any
waiting. So, seems to be better... The site still gets an Epic Fail
from me, as it is impossible (as far as I can tell) to get any
information (on price) out of the site without playing with email. [
I was wrong, see below. ]

>In order to see your choices, you need prices for *you*, right?

No. We need to see the price for the product we select. Might be me,
might be my Mom, might be my daughter, or might be what I perceive is
the standard American family.

>*Correct* prices.

The prices displayed by a functioning web site will always be correct,
by definition. Go to www.amazon.com, or www.newegg.com, all the
prices are correct. Like buying a new car, many options and extras
available, give me the base, and then let me refine it til I grow
tired of data entry. People know when they are `done', and know the
price they see before that is a rough guess until they are done.

>Well, the prices (including the effect of a subsidy) are determined
>by a bunch of information that they were estimating takes half an
>hour to enter

It takes 13 seconds. I did it about 20 times in a row on the
California web site. Next. The CA web site is superior to the
federal one, as they give out prices (even though they are wrong if
you have kids). Ah, after you pointed out it was possible to get
prices, I eventually found it (they hid it and made it hard to find,
epic fail). The federal site took about the same 13 seconds to get
the price. The format they show results in sucks compared to the
California one. 1 result per six inches of screen.

>and maybe an hour of research on the part of the user to find that
>information. Plus they get a whole bunch more info from the IRS.
>That part of the design, codified in law, is a major part of the
>problem. The law makes computing a correct price *HARD*. What user
>would tolerate entering all that information every time they went to
>the web site?

We've covered this before. Go to newegg, pick add to wish list.
Notice it just works. Notice it is a single button click. We call
this an existence proof.

>As it stands, without logging in, they are giving out price info
>(er, lies) for two "ages": under 50 and over 50. That isn't what
>you can actually buy, though.

I was unable to get any price [ pause ], oh, wait, I finally found it.
They have improved it, you can enter the number and ages of the people.

Cute, they redirect to http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator
to actually farm out quote (estimate) calculation, stupid, sad. I
guess $1B isn't enough to figure out the subsidy, maybe $10B would
have got the job done.

>When the details you have to re-enter

You predicate your world on the notion that one must re-enter. I
reject that view. A stupid web site certainly can be slow, craps
out, and has you reenter the same information, over and over again. I
view that the same way I would view a car that requires that you get
out and push it.

>are more like "type in your last tax return (all of it) and your
>credit report", the preference changes quickly. I believe it is also
>intended that you come back to the website around Dec. 2014 to get
>your insurance for 2015.

I think you misunderstand what open enrollment is, when it starts, and
what they expected people to be able to do. Hint, look it up.

>Another indication of a flawed design codified into law: part of the
>info required is *estimated* 2014 income. IMHO, asking for estimates
>of something in the future on a Federal website ought to be a felony,
>as should giving such an estimate.

The IRS does things reminiscent of this. Be curious to learn how it
works out for people that just don't know what their income will be.


Anyway, thanks for your post, it caused me to go try the federal web
site once again.

[Philip Lantz]

Mike Stump wrote:

> Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
> >Another indication of a flawed design codified into law: part of the
> >info required is *estimated* 2014 income. IMHO, asking for estimates
> >of something in the future on a Federal website ought to be a felony,
> >as should giving such an estimate.
>
> The IRS does things reminiscent of this. Be curious to learn how it
> works out for people that just don't know what their income will be.

The IRS doesn't actually ask for estimates of future income, deductions,
etc., they just require that you pay tax based on those estimates. :-)
Sometimes it really is impossible to avoid paying too much and still be
assured of not having to pay interest on the underpayment. (They call it
a penalty, but it really is just interest, and the rate is not onerous.)

They do have some rules to alleviate the problems caused by inaccurate
estimates, such as: 1) if you pay at least as much tax as you did the
previous year, there's no penalty; 2) if you pay at least 90% of what
eventually turns out to be owed, there's no penalty; 3) if you pay tax
in the early part of the year based on income received so far, and then
your income unexpectedly increases later in the year, there's a way to
adjust for that.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.lang.c Philip Lantz <p...@canterey.us> wrote:
> Mike Stump wrote:

(snip)

>> The IRS does things reminiscent of this. Be curious to learn how it
>> works out for people that just don't know what their income will be.

> The IRS doesn't actually ask for estimates of future income, deductions,
> etc., they just require that you pay tax based on those estimates. :-)
> Sometimes it really is impossible to avoid paying too much and still be
> assured of not having to pay interest on the underpayment. (They call it
> a penalty, but it really is just interest, and the rate is not onerous.)

> They do have some rules to alleviate the problems caused by inaccurate
> estimates, such as: 1) if you pay at least as much tax as you did the
> previous year, there's no penalty; 2) if you pay at least 90% of what
> eventually turns out to be owed, there's no penalty; 3) if you pay tax
> in the early part of the year based on income received so far, and then
> your income unexpectedly increases later in the year, there's a way to
> adjust for that.

Most of the rules are by quarter. Look at form (and instructions for
form) 2210 to see all the rules.

Most people have withholding, which takes out the appropriate amount
for each pay period. Otherwise, they assume that your income was spread
out equally through the year. If it wasn't, then you file form 2210 to
show that you paid the appropriate amount (estimated tax or withholding)
for each quarter.

-- glen

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

My point was that you are probably really about at the half-way point in development when about 62% of the test cases pass.

[Gordon Burditt]

>>Transaction loads aren't the issue when the front page takes a full
>>minute to load
>
> And there is yet another issue right there. Any decent CDN can scale
> to the required they needed. google can engineer a web site that
> loads quickly and yet, is usable.
>
> I just timed it, it seemed to take 1/2 a second. So, either you are
> wrong, or, or the issue was trivial enough to fix, to have fixed it.

This was the issue in October when they first rolled it out. It
was ridiculously slow even at 3AM. They patched around it with the
"wait" screen for a couple of weeks, then they got more to the root
of the problem after a few weeks.

>>(before you can even get to a transaction). Then they put a "wait"
>>screen in front
>
> I see no wait screen now.

And this is how they fixed it, temporarily. However, the wait
screen was back, for some people, on December 2, as there was a
surge of users hoping it would work. The "fix" Obama said was going
in Dec. 1 apparently also decreased efficiency.

I see the "fix" as greatly increasing efficiency: when I log in,
I get sent back to the login screen (very quickly) so I can't log
in. If you don't let anyone log in, response will be much faster.
Turn off your pop-up blocker. Already off. Restart your browser.
Ok, no change. Use IE. I consider it a severe security problem
putting passwords into IE, but it wouldn't matter, no change.

> I dived into the site, and didn't see any
> waiting. So, seems to be better... The site still gets an Epic Fail
> from me, as it is impossible (as far as I can tell) to get any
> information (on price) out of the site without playing with email. [
> I was wrong, see below. ]
>
>>In order to see your choices, you need prices for *you*, right?
>
> No. We need to see the price for the product we select.

That's ludicrous, especially for something as expensive as health
insurance, and with a 2-to-1 spread on (unsubsidized) prices. I
see no way you can select some big-ticket item, like a car or a
house or health insurance, and only look at the price for the one
you select.

Obama is trying really hard to NOT give you a choice on who to cover.
If you have a wife, cover her. If you have kids, cover them.
If you live in X county, you pay the rates for that, at least until
you move.

> Might be me,
> might be my Mom, might be my daughter, or might be what I perceive is
> the standard American family.


>>*Correct* prices.
>
> The prices displayed by a functioning web site will always be correct,
> by definition. Go to www.amazon.com, or www.newegg.com, all the
> prices are correct.

No, I've had times when the prices were wrong. Rare, but it happens.
The merchant said Amazon got the promotion wrong, and refunded the
difference (before I had a chance to complain), plus threw in a
bonus item.

Very few commercial web sites will vary the prices based on the
individual person, as health insurance does (however, try buying
auto insurance without a lot of personal details - although many
of them will come from the state, like how many DUIs or tickets
you've had). A few (travel, I think) sites have tried this, charging,
say, 10% more for people using Macs, but people get really upset
when that hits the news.

> Like buying a new car, many options and extras
> available, give me the base, and then let me refine it til I grow
> tired of data entry.

If I am going to buy a new car, I want the base price and the price
of each and every option I would consider buying anyway. No price,
no buy.


The plans on the federal site really do not offer options within
the plan. An insurance company might offer half a dozen to a dozen
different plans, and there might be several insurance companies
offering plans. Each has a fixed price for you.

Unless you plan to commit fraud, your income is not an "option".
What county you live in is not an "option" unless you plan to move
based on what insurance policy you select. Whether you have smoked
or not is not an "option". According to the law, whether you cover
kids is not an "option" unless your spouse's insurance covers them.

I have a choice of 38 plans, with 38 prices. Except for the issue of
buying another policy for dental, I get to pick one of those prices.

Things I might consider include:
- PRICE!! And I expect this to be the most important part for most people.
- Does the plan include my doctors?
- I can choose a higher-cost plan to get lower deductibles.
- I can trade off a little between high co-pays vs. higher out-of-pocket limits.
- Does the plan include drugs I need?
- There's a tradeoff of more coverage for higher cost.

The feds have this ranking system of "bronze", "silver", "gold" and
"platinum" which reflects an overall population average of what
percentage of costs are covered (60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%). Assuming
it's accurate, that's helpful information you probably couldn't get
otherwise.

The feds also have standards for coverage so differences in who covers,
say, drug rehab or weight loss surgery between plans has dropped to
almost none. You can't drop coverage of pregnancy for a family
consisting of one man and one boy.

> People know when they are `done', and know the
> price they see before that is a rough guess until they are done.

You see a plan. As far as that plan is concerned, you're done.

Buying health insurance at the federal website is much more like
buying gasoline. The pump has maybe 4 grades (including diesel).
You can decide whether to fill your tank half-full or three-quarters
full or full. That's all the choice you have.

At the workplace (at least every place I worked that offered health
insurance), you might have a few choices, like HMO vs. PPO, and you
generally weren't allowed to decline it, but generally you have
less choice than the Marketplace. The option of covering children
is likely no longer optional.

Given the subsidy, what's free for one person might cost $1000 per
month for another. Perhaps more important, for someone with a
subsidy, some policies might be free and some might cost $300 per
month that they don't have.

>>Well, the prices (including the effect of a subsidy) are determined
>>by a bunch of information that they were estimating takes half an
>>hour to enter
>
> It takes 13 seconds. I did it about 20 times in a row on the
> California web site. Next. The CA web site is superior to the
> federal one, as they give out prices (even though they are wrong if
> you have kids).

It's unacceptable to give out wrong prices. Does the CA web site
have the equivalent of the "BUY" button (on the federal website
they call it "ENROLL" but it amounts to the same thing). I don't
see how someone can buy without knowing the price. Pick a plan.
BAM! You're done, and the result has a fixed price for you. Don't
like it? Try a different plan. People do seem to have a reasonable
number of plans to look at.

> Ah, after you pointed out it was possible to get
> prices, I eventually found it (they hid it and made it hard to find,
> epic fail). The federal site took about the same 13 seconds to get
> the price. The format they show results in sucks compared to the
> California one. 1 result per six inches of screen.

What you see on the federal website may depend on what state you
say you are living in.

>>and maybe an hour of research on the part of the user to find that
>>information. Plus they get a whole bunch more info from the IRS.
>>That part of the design, codified in law, is a major part of the
>>problem. The law makes computing a correct price *HARD*. What user
>>would tolerate entering all that information every time they went to
>>the web site?
>
> We've covered this before. Go to newegg, pick add to wish list.
> Notice it just works. Notice it is a single button click. We call
> this an existence proof.

Newegg does not sell auto insurance. And it doesn't try to charge
different prices based on credit rating or who the customer is.
Does newegg offer subsidies on big-screen TVs based on income?

>>(er, lies) for two "ages": under 50 and over 50. That isn't what
>>you can actually buy, though.

> I was unable to get any price [ pause ], oh, wait, I finally found it.
> They have improved it, you can enter the number and ages of the people.

Ok, they changed this to ask for ages since I last looked at it
(without logging in). They really are trying to improve the site,
but this should have been done before June 1, giving them time to test
it.

> Cute, they redirect to http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator
> to actually farm out quote (estimate) calculation, stupid, sad. I
> guess $1B isn't enough to figure out the subsidy, maybe $10B would
> have got the job done.
>
>>When the details you have to re-enter
>
> You predicate your world on the notion that one must re-enter. I

One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.
Without that, the site gets an Epic Fail to say nothing of violating
bait-and-switch laws.

If the price depends on a whole bunch of factors, you *MUST* have
those factors available to compute the price. Also, this info is
privacy-sensitive, so storing it in a cookie or something is not
acceptable. What you are buying is one of a pre-packaged set of
choices made and priced just for you, so there's no options within
a plan. What options do you see besides setting up an account?
(When/if you buy, other info you entered like contact information
is needed to pass on to the insurance company).

> reject that view. A stupid web site certainly can be slow, craps
> out, and has you reenter the same information, over and over again. I
> view that the same way I would view a car that requires that you get
> out and push it.
>
>>are more like "type in your last tax return (all of it) and your
>>credit report", the preference changes quickly. I believe it is also
>>intended that you come back to the website around Dec. 2014 to get
>>your insurance for 2015.
>
> I think you misunderstand what open enrollment is, when it starts, and
> what they expected people to be able to do. Hint, look it up.

I expect open enrollment (or at least open changing of insurers)
to happen each year, and people will procrastinate to near the
deadline. The application I have says "FOR 2014", so I expect that
I'll need one for 2015 just before 2015. At the very least, if I
get a subsidy and want to keep it, or want one now, I have to at
least lie (estimates of future income are always lies) for the next
year, this year's lie won't be sufficient.

>>Another indication of a flawed design codified into law: part of the
>>info required is *estimated* 2014 income. IMHO, asking for estimates
>>of something in the future on a Federal website ought to be a felony,
>>as should giving such an estimate.
>
> The IRS does things reminiscent of this. Be curious to learn how it
> works out for people that just don't know what their income will be.

The IRS balances stuff out at the end (which makes it only slightly
less odious). According to a lot of info on the Affordable Health
Care Act, the *only* way to get a subsidy is to go through the
Marketplace (Federal or state, as applicable). If I estimate my
2014 income as large, and get laid off next month and can't get
another job, I can't take a subsidy I didn't expect to be eligible
for, at least according to the site. There's a pretty heavy
assumption that (almost all) people going through the marketplace
are going to get a subsidy. Most of the rest get it through their
employer.

I wonder how it will work out for people who can answer questions
about income "how much do you want it to be"? Seniors who have
significant retirement investments (and probably shouldn't be getting
a subsidy, although it seems that a family of 4 with $94K income
gets one) may be able to seriously shift their income from year to
year by selling stuff with an unrealized loss vs. selling stuff
with an unrealized profit.

[Gordon Burditt]

>> But from "The Official Rules": "Whatever metric is used to calculate a
>> reward to a person will be manipulated to benefit that person to the
>> point that it no longer serves as a reasonable measurement of the reward
>> due that person."
>
> Lines of code. (Comments, blank lines, and #includes don't count -- we're
> on to your little tricks!)
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int
> main(
> int
> argc,
> char
> *
> argv
> []
> )
> {
> printf(
> "Hello, "
> "world."
> "\n"
> );
> return(
> EXIT_SUCCESS
> );
> )

You obviously didn't run this through the LOC Maximizer program.

You have parentheses that are not alone on a line.
You have commas that are not alone on a line.
You have brackets that are not alone on a line.
You have semicolons that are not alone on a line.
Your variable names are way too short and should be spread across
lines:
a\
r\
g\
c

[osmium]

"Gordon Burditt" wrote:

<snippage>
This is the most informative thing I've seen on the ACA despite quite a bit
of exposure on various sites and so on. Congratulations!

>Whether you have smoked
> or not is not an "option".

I hope the actual question is whether you smoke or not. Asking about what
you used to do discourages quitting. The only practice punished by the ACA
seems to be smoking. AIUI a penalty of 50% in premiums. If that is the
*only* thing they punish, they could at least have a more reasonable
penalty, say 20%. It is far from clear to me that a smoker even costs the
system more. A relatively cheap death at 55 vs. a heart transplant later
on, for example. .

> Given the subsidy, what's free for one person might cost $1000 per
> month for another.

I don't think there is any free coverage. The affordable care act says
_someone_ can afford it, most likely not you. For the short term there is a
subsidy due to the courtesy of the Chinese government.

> One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.
> Without that, the site gets an Epic Fail to say nothing of violating
> bait-and-switch laws.

I think it is hugely unlikely that the government is subject to the
bait-and-switch laws.

[Ben Bacarisse]

gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
<snip>

> You obviously didn't run this through the LOC Maximizer program.

If it claims to be able to live up to it's name, it's lying!

<snip>
--
Ben.

[Gordon Burditt]

> This is the most informative thing I've seen on the ACA despite quite a bit
> of exposure on various sites and so on. Congratulations!
>
>>Whether you have smoked
>> or not is not an "option".
>
> I hope the actual question is whether you smoke or not.

Sorry, I misquoted. They ask whether or not you have *EVER* smoked.

> Asking about what
> you used to do discourages quitting.

If I had answered "Yes", they might ask how long it has been since
I last smoked; I don't know. They might also ask what you smoke.
It's possible you get non-smoker rates if you have not smoked for
X years. They are not going to give you non-smoker rates if you
smoke except while typing on the computer and you've been off
tobacco for 90 seconds. Quitting programs are covered, so if you
can quit in one year, you can get non-smoker rates for the next.

There are a lot of questions that seem to be asked mostly to decide
whether to ask or skip the next half-dozen questions. It does make
sense to ask if you have a wife before asking her age.

> The only practice punished by the ACA
> seems to be smoking. AIUI a penalty of 50% in premiums.

As I understand it, insurance companies are allowed to charge more;
it's not required.

> If that is the
> *only* thing they punish, they could at least have a more reasonable
> penalty, say 20%.

If they can justify a penalty of 5,000% based on medical expenses,
that's fine with me. I doubt that's true, though. And there's
apparently a glitch trying to bill for it. If the insurance company
realizes that the costs aren't that much greater than non-smokers,
they might want to attract smokers by setting the rate lower than
permitted. (See also "payday loan" lenders who specialize in lending
to those with crappy credit ratings.)

> It is far from clear to me that a smoker even costs the
> system more. A relatively cheap death at 55 vs. a heart transplant later
> on, for example. .

>> Given the subsidy, what's free for one person might cost $1000 per
>> month for another.
>
> I don't think there is any free coverage.

With the subsidy, some people can get free coverage - meaning that's what
they have to pay, not that nobody pays it. They cannot get a net refund.
(The subsidy covers the average of the "bronze" plan costs, so if you
pick a cheap "bronze" plan, you could mathematically justify a net refund,
except they ruled it out. There are several places on the tax forms where
they really mean "if less than zero, enter zero", but don't state it.

> The affordable care act says
> _someone_ can afford it,

Bill Gates

> most likely not you. For the short term there is a
> subsidy due to the courtesy of the Chinese government.

>> One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.
>> Without that, the site gets an Epic Fail to say nothing of violating
>> bait-and-switch laws.

> I think it is hugely unlikely that the government is subject to the
> bait-and-switch laws.

You're right: Social Security is a counterexample.

[osmium]

"Gordon Burditt" wrrote:

> There are several places on the tax forms where
> they really mean "if less than zero, enter zero", but don't state it.

One of the stories on TV said they floundered around trying to figure out a
date format that the program would accept and never did find a format. I
saw a couple other somewhat similar things but they don't come to mind.

I personally saw an ad on TV that said to delete your cookies. I don't want
to even think about the hell I would go through if I deleted my cookies.
The thing you said above reinforces my guess. ISTM the work was done by new
grads with very little adult involvement. After a lifetime of engineering I
can't imagine letting new grads do anything very important for the first
year or two.

I think you've spent quite a bit of time looking at this; do you think I
might be right?

[J. Clarke]

In article <bg6gkb...@mid.individual.net>, r124c...@comcast.net
says...

>
> "Gordon Burditt" wrote:
>
> <snippage>
> This is the most informative thing I've seen on the ACA despite quite a bit
> of exposure on various sites and so on. Congratulations!
>
> >Whether you have smoked
> > or not is not an "option".
>
> I hope the actual question is whether you smoke or not. Asking about what
> you used to do discourages quitting. The only practice punished by the ACA
> seems to be smoking. AIUI a penalty of 50% in premiums. If that is the
> *only* thing they punish, they could at least have a more reasonable
> penalty, say 20%. It is far from clear to me that a smoker even costs the
> system more. A relatively cheap death at 55 vs. a heart transplant later
> on, for example. .

The most expensive thing you can do is live to a ripe old age and need
long term care. I don't smoke but I see the smoking surcharge as being
based entirely in political correctness.

> > Given the subsidy, what's free for one person might cost $1000 per
> > month for another.
>
> I don't think there is any free coverage. The affordable care act says
> _someone_ can afford it, most likely not you. For the short term there is a
> subsidy due to the courtesy of the Chinese government.

Common myth. The Chinese hold less than 10 percent of the US national
debt.

[Les Cargill]

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <bg6gkb...@mid.individual.net>, r124c...@comcast.net
> says...
>>
>> "Gordon Burditt" wrote:
>>
>> <snippage>
>> This is the most informative thing I've seen on the ACA despite quite a bit
>> of exposure on various sites and so on. Congratulations!
>>
>>> Whether you have smoked
>>> or not is not an "option".
>>
>> I hope the actual question is whether you smoke or not. Asking about what
>> you used to do discourages quitting. The only practice punished by the ACA
>> seems to be smoking. AIUI a penalty of 50% in premiums. If that is the
>> *only* thing they punish, they could at least have a more reasonable
>> penalty, say 20%. It is far from clear to me that a smoker even costs the
>> system more. A relatively cheap death at 55 vs. a heart transplant later
>> on, for example. .
>
> The most expensive thing you can do is live to a ripe old age and need
> long term care. I don't smoke but I see the smoking surcharge as being
> based entirely in political correctness.
>

Not entirely - there really is an impetus to protect the
health of the inventory... excuse me, population.

>>> Given the subsidy, what's free for one person might cost $1000 per
>>> month for another.
>>
>> I don't think there is any free coverage. The affordable care act says
>> _someone_ can afford it, most likely not you. For the short term there is a
>> subsidy due to the courtesy of the Chinese government.
>
> Common myth. The Chinese hold less than 10 percent of the US national
> debt.
>

Yep. Which is just enough to hold themselves hostage
to *our* economic future. You don't claw your way to
the top of the pile in China without being pretty gosh
darn smart.

>>> One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.
>>> Without that, the site gets an Epic Fail to say nothing of violating
>>> bait-and-switch laws.
>>
>> I think it is hugely unlikely that the government is subject to the
>> bait-and-switch laws.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <2926b$527f7389$5419b3e4$35...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <Window...@DreamPC2006.com> wrote:
>Hello,

>
>If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve deadlines for
>software releases then here is my method to get it done on time the next
>time:
>
>Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.
>
>Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount of money
>back to the company.
>

>Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X ammount of bonus

>money from the company. (Optional).
>

>I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

No. Bosses would set unreasonably short deadlines. Engineers would
push for unreasonably long deadlines. Without a reasonable and neutral
metric for determining in advance, how long a project should take,
this is completely unworkable.

And yes, the bosses would absolutely do this. I have a friend who used to
be in construction law. Primarly suing crooked contractors. There were
cases where major contractors (I'm talking about building major buildings
in downtown) would deliberately alter the computer-generated schedules
in order to give their subcontractors impossible deadlines, just so they
could collect the penalties.

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Keith Thompson]

[HUGE SNIP]

This thread started as an off-topic discussion about software
development, and has morphed into a discussion of the Affordable
Care Act and its implementation.

Before posting further, please consider whether
alt.comp.borland-delphi and comp.lang.c are really the best place
for this. (Hint: comp.lang.c certainly isn't; I can't speak for
alt.comp.borland-delphi, but the name strongly suggests that it
isn't either.)

I'm not aware of any shortage of forums that would welcome discussion
on these topics.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Charlton Wilbur]

>>>>> "EF" == Edward A Falk <fa...@rahul.net> writes:

>> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve
>> deadlines for software releases then here is my method to get it
>> done on time the next time:
>>
>> Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.
>>
>> Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount
>> of money back to the company.
>>
>> Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X
>> ammount of bonus money from the company. (Optional).
>>
>> I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

EF> No. Bosses would set unreasonably short deadlines. Engineers
EF> would push for unreasonably long deadlines. Without a reasonable
EF> and neutral metric for determining in advance, how long a
EF> project should take, this is completely unworkable.

Not to mention a reasonable and neutral metric for determining whether
the software is of acceptable quality.

Also? You want to penalize me for delivering software late, when the
reason the software is late is almost always something I have no control
over, while *optionally* rewarding me for delivering it early? Look,
this is me polishing my resume, because you don't realize what a
clusterfuck you're about to create and my next major professional goal
is to leave your company before it becomes obvious.

Either that, or I unionize.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net

[Ken Brody]

On 12/4/2013 3:14 PM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "EF" == Edward A Falk <fa...@rahul.net> writes:
>
> >> If you have a big software company which doesn't achieve
> >> deadlines for software releases then here is my method to get it
> >> done on time the next time:
> >>
> >> Step 1. Give software developers a steady salary.
> >>
> >> Step 2. For each second the software is late they pay X ammount
> >> of money back to the company.
> >>
> >> Step 3. For each second the software is on time they get X
> >> ammount of bonus money from the company. (Optional).

(I assume you mean "early", not "on time".)

> >> I am pretty sure this will work wonders.

I guess it depends on your definition of "wonders". :-)

[...]

> Also? You want to penalize me for delivering software late, when the
> reason the software is late is almost always something I have no control
> over, while *optionally* rewarding me for delivering it early?

Actually, without that "optional" bonus, you'll actually be *penalized* for
being early. (For example, if you deliver a week early, you'll have been
paid a week's salary less for it.)

Make sure to not deliver it until a second before the deadline, so as to get
your full salary. Use all of that "extra" time reading email, updating your
Facebook status, and messing up Wikipedia entries.

[...]

[Mike Stump]

In article <bg6gkb...@mid.individual.net>,

osmium <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Whether you have smoked
>> or not is not an "option".
>
>I hope the actual question is whether you smoke or not.

Yes, and it has a time component to it as well. Have you smoked in the past n months. I think it was 3.

>The only practice punished by the ACA seems to be smoking. AIUI a
>penalty of 50% in premiums.

Wow, that hurts. Glad I never smoked, will never.

>> One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.
>> Without that, the site gets an Epic Fail to say nothing of violating
>> bait-and-switch laws.
>
>I think it is hugely unlikely that the government is subject to the
>bait-and-switch laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity :-) They can consent
to being sued, if they want to be. They kinda need a compelling
reason to want to be.

[Mike Stump]

In article <LIadnRviUM_nfwDP...@posted.internetamerica>,

Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>> I dived into the site, and didn't see any
>> waiting. So, seems to be better... The site still gets an Epic Fail
>> from me, as it is impossible (as far as I can tell) to get any
>> information (on price) out of the site without playing with email. [
>> I was wrong, see below. ]
>>
>>>In order to see your choices, you need prices for *you*, right?
>>
>> No. We need to see the price for the product we select.
>
>That's ludicrous,

And yet, that is what 90%+ of the shopping web site do and this is how
90%+ of the brick and mortar establishments do. Are you are so
detached from reality that you don't understand how the world works?

For your homework exercise, take a trip out the the mall. See if you
can find products, see if there is something like a price tag on those
products, or if a price is listed on the shelf next to the product.
Take along a 10 year old, if you can't figure it out, have them
explain it to you.

>especially for something as expensive as health insurance, and with a
>2-to-1 spread on (unsubsidized) prices. I see no way you can select
>some big-ticket item, like a car or a house or health insurance, and
>only look at the price for the one you select.

You are out of the loop and out of date:

http://www.zillow.com/atherton-ca/

I see 24 prices currently, and I look at line and see exactly that
price. Welcome to the world around you.

>No, I've had times when the prices were wrong.

And yet the fact remains that web sites have prices on them. And
those prices are very accurate. Likely 99% or better on 99% of the
web sites, though, this doesn't matter. My point was, web sites that
sell things, have prices.

>> Like buying a new car, many options and extras
>> available, give me the base, and then let me refine it til I grow
>> tired of data entry.
>
>If I am going to buy a new car, I want the base price and the price
>of each and every option I would consider buying anyway. No price,
>no buy.

And now you know in part why people that sell things often (but not
always) include the price in an easy to find manner.

>Unless you plan to commit fraud, your income is not an "option".

Sure it is. Try it, let us know what you find. Hint, enter 999,999
if someone(something) presses the issue. :-) It is an option, you
just don't realize it. Also, on the web site, you can enter any value
you want, and no value you enter is fraud. That word doesn't mean
what you think it means. Hint, go see if Khan
(http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy) has a course that covers
law. :-) I'd not bet against it.

What's next, viewing prices on the silk road is in violation of the
law? :-) Hint, no, indeed, it is not.

>What county you live in is not an "option" unless you plan to move
>based on what insurance policy you select.

Yes, often on the web sites, this comes in the form of a zip code. If
you want to option out of it, type 90210 for example. You can then
see products based upon the selection you choose. What you enter is
entirely up to you. The prices you then see are based upon the
information provided.

>Whether you have smoked or not is not an "option".

Sure it is. You can get price quotes for plans with and without smokers.

>According to the law, whether you cover kids is not an "option"
>unless your spouse's insurance covers them.

? It is not against the law to enter anything you want on the web
site to see the price of that thing you want to see the price of. You
are deeply confused. Further, it is not against the law to sign up
and leave the wife off. Nor is it against the law to sign up and
leave the kids off.

>I have a choice of 38 plans, with 38 prices. Except for the issue of
>buying another policy for dental, I get to pick one of those prices.

No, you are mistaken. You can venture out to a larger number of
providers than those listed for on the Federal web site, offerring a
large number of plans (rather than just the the handful on the Federal
web site) and see prices from any of them.

Hint the Federal government didn't make it illegal to offer plans in
excess of the minimum standard nor to make it illegal to offer plans
in addition to those on the Federal web site. Nor to have prices on web sites.

>Buying health insurance at the federal website is much more like
>buying gasoline. The pump has maybe 4 grades (including diesel).
>You can decide whether to fill your tank half-full or three-quarters
>full or full. That's all the choice you have.

Sure, but, you can also buy any plan from from any provider as well.

>It's unacceptable to give out wrong prices.

Right. And the web site aims to not do that. They give out the price
based upon the information you enter. Information isn't right or
wrong, it just is. Say I'm retirement planning and want to enter my
information, but with the age at 75, I can do that; the price
reflected on the web site, just is.

>Does the CA web site have the equivalent of the "BUY" button

I'll plead ignorance. What I do know is that if you run 20 scenarios
on either the california or the fereral site, the 21st will take 20
seconds or less. This predicated on entering 999,999 for income.

>Newegg does not sell auto insurance.

Oh my god, tell me it is not so. We can't buy car insurance because
newegg doesn't sell it. My world ends. [ pause ] Wait, so what? I
went to http://www.geico.com/, and apparently there are other
merchants on the internet and some of them purport to sell car
insurance. I clicked around and in a minute I had a price displayed
(quote) of $182.55/month. So, apparently the fact that newegg doesn't,
isn't relevant to anything.

>One must get correct prices to make an intelligent buying decision.

You assume that the only utility of a price is a buying decision.
This is wrong. For example, a news reporter might want to survey
price differentials between high crime neighborhoods and low crime
areas and do a story on it. They can use the price to compute the
differences.

>If the price depends on a whole bunch of factors, you *MUST* have
>those factors available to compute the price.

If you want to see the price with those factors weighed in. A good
web site will let you explore the prices the way you want to.

>Also, this info is privacy-sensitive, so storing it in a cookie or
>something is not acceptable.

You're not yet a web site security guru, please study some more.