AOL released its first DOS version in 1991 and its first Windows version in 1992. So it started to become a major player in 1991, the Internet came into its own in 1994 (one could argue for 1992 or 1993). With the advent of the Internet for the masses, AOL became obsolete. However, it took most people several years to realize that they were paying a premium price to AOL for access to content that was available for much less.
The reason that auto manufacturers went with parallel hybrid drives was because of U.S. tax laws. At one point, (I don't remember when the law was passed) there was a tax break available for buying a hybrid car, but the way the law was written cars with series hybrid drives didn't qualify for the tax break, only cars with parallel hybrid drives.
Why is it that in this day and age the movement of the market (and the whole underpinnings of the global economy) is based on things like the perception of how someone wrote a press release? It seems crazy to me that we put up with things like this. However IANAE (economist) so I have no idea how structure our economy differently
The problem is that as an investor, if you are invested in a company that is basically sound, but is currently in a weak market position, if a lot of people perceive that this current weak position is a fundamental flaw in the company, their reaction to that perception can make it a reality.
I thought the AOL purchase of Time-Warner was a brilliant move on the part of AOL. It was their only chance of survival. I think it could have worked if Time-Warner's phobia about Internet distribution and piracy hadn't proceeded to infect AOL.
If the new football league is successful, it will gradually become a better place to evaluate talent than college. The new league will have the players playing against a more even level of competition, so NFL scouts will know that a guy in the new league who looks like he can play in the NFL actually can play in the NFL.
In college basketball, most NBA level players only play one or two years anyway. At this time, the level of play in the European professional leagues is not up to NBA standards, so guys who aren't ready to play in the NBA can go over there for some seasoning, rather than playing for "free" in college here.
Just from looking at a WS ID, we know just about where it is. If a user calls and only knows their building and room, we can easily isolate the machine.
Until you move it, and then you have to rename it. A better idea is to give it an arbitrary name and then add location info in DNS TXT records if you want them to be easily accessible and not tied to the PC's actual identity.
So, going to the database to look up where a computer is every time there is a problem with communicating with it is less effort than renaming it every time you move it? How often do you move the computers where you work?
Except that all of the PC's at my office are located at places that are difficult to read anything on the case. Desk space is valuable, the PC case sits somewhere out of the way (usually under the desk).
Since our computers have different software configurations depending on which department uses them, they are named by department and a number. Since I have to change the software licensing database when they change department anyway, it is no real hassle to change the name in the database at the same time.
Actually, there are two new developments that may suck the money out of college sports. There is a new professional football league starting up this fall that intends to be a sort of minor league to the NFL . They are going to offer jobs to guys who either were big name college guys who couldn't quite hack it in the NFL or guys who never got a chance to show their stuff to the NFL. If this league is successful, they will gradually cut into college football since they will provide an alternative to guys who go to college just to play football.
The second development is the guy who went pro in Europe right out of high school rather than playing college basketball, followed up by the guy who dropped out of high school to go pro in Europe. If these guys are successful, more kids will go that route and gradually cut into college basketball.
Clearly these policies will need to change or colleges will no longer be an effective means of higher education.
I see a problem here, you used the future tense. That implies that colleges are currently an effective means of higher education. This is certainly subject to debate.
Most of the schools in the SEC are state universities. That means that the stadiums they play in are government property. The SEC is not a truly "private business" so your argument does not hold up. If all of the schools in the SEC were private institutions, you would be right. However, even in that case protest would be appropriate. It is perfectly appropriate to protest the actions of a private business, as long as one recognizes the legal right of a private business to act contrary to your beliefs as to how it should act.
a) Remove the monopolies granted to the cable and other ISPs (I presume your solution)
or
b) Set up a better system of rules the providers have to play by and actually enforce them.
What makes you think the new, expanded rules will be better, they will just concentrate more power in the hands of the people who screwed it up in the first place.
In option (a) the government must interfere (again) to "open" up the playing field so to speak.
No, all the government has to do is allow competitors in. If you want to put in wires or cable or fiber optics, you need to get permission from whoever owns the land. If the incumbent has wires or cables or fiber optic in public right of way, you can put wires or... there too. If you need to dig, you need to put things back the way they were when you started.
At least in option (b) the rules are set up front. Theoretically they are more transparent because it's an explicit statement of, "these are the rules", and we would potentially get a say in the process.
You mean like those bills in Congress that it is "unreasonable" to expect Congressmen to read and understand before they vote on them?
Nor should a private company be my only option for local utilities service.
You are absolutely right, you should have the ability to choose between several private companies.
If it wasn't for government intervention in medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) in the first place, health care costs would not have skyrocketed the way they did. Before the institution of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs rose at the same rate as inflation. Immediately after the institution of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs bean rising much faster than inflation. And my question is, what are you going to do when the people making those decision are the government, so there is no longer anybody to turn to to challenge their decisions?
Cable TV and ISP's would exist even if the government had not granted regional monopolies to certain companies. It would have taken slightly longer for cable to get rolled out, but there is enough money to be made to support more than one cable TV provider in most areas.
The system of local franchise agreement was created by the Federal government. The fact that it was dopey was a result of the hodgepodge of local governments all doing things a little bit differently.
I suspect that fixing the mess that the government made of cable TV (and now Internet) will require additional Federal regulation. However, we should look for regulation that will increase competition rather than regulation that merely increases the power of government (by regulating and protecting the incumbent monopolies).
It's Comcast's hard earned money, they should be able to expand their monopoly as far as they can without government interference.
You are absolutely correct, except for the fact that Comcast HAS a monopoly because of government interference.
The answer to problems created by government regulation is not more regulation.
Why don't you take of your partisan blinders and look at how the free market treats consumers.
The last 3 places I have lived at had only 1 cable company "choice".
Why do you think that is?
Because the government has encouraged there to be only one cable company in most areas. I don't know what the current laws are, but I remember when cable was being rolled out. Different cable companies would apply for the franchise to operate in a particular area (if it was an area that was lucrative enough that more than one was interested), then the local government would grant a monopoly to one of them. I remember some major scandals when it was discovered that some local officials were accepting what amounted to bribes to grant the local franchise to one company or another.
So, to reiterate, the answer to your question as to why in most areas there is no competition among cable providers is that the government set it up that way.
Thanks for the heads up about shaky cam. That puts "District 9" on the "maybe when I can watch it for free" list. It was already suspect because of everything I had seen about it "having a message". Generally, I don't watch movies for a message, I watch movies to be entertained. There are exceptions, but so far no one has said anything about the message that puts "District 9" into that elite category.
In the U.S. academic texts don't have "cover prices". In the U.S. publishers sell text books "net price". That is the publisher has a price that they charge the retailer (who must mark it up some amount to cover their costs and to make any profit).
The Justice Department has no more authority to give orders to the members of the Maricopa Sheriff's Office than it does to any other person in the U.S.. As far as the Sheriff's office raiding Government offices, law enforcement often does this when criminal behavior is suspected of other Government officers.
This is a case where there is a conflict between the powers assigned to different parts of the government. There is a reason that there is no clear, easy way to resolve this conflict. This was, at least partially, intentional on the part of those who set this up.
No, our immigration laws are set up primarily to please two groups of people: those who want cheap labor that doesn't fall under U.S. labor and wage regulations, and those attempting to protect unskilled union jobs from competition.
If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.
Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud. That means that the majority of people who live in his jurisdiction who are both eligible to vote and care enough to vote support Joe Arpaio.
So you are saying that the researchers are reaching a conclusion not in evidence. That may be. However, we cannot reach your conclusion based on the evidence of the study. By your argument, the only conclusion we can reach from the study is that people from different regions read facial expressions differently (which is what I said in my original post).
The study does not give us any evidence that the faces of East Asians actually express emotion differently, only that they read the facial expression of emotion differently.
They looked at what happened to the banks that took money and wanted no parts of it. Taking the money won't protect them against net neutrality being enshrined into law. This Administration has shown a tendency to spring new conditions on recipients of government largess after they have it (not that this is an unusual tendency for politicians, just that most are more subtle).
The problem with this attempt and with your "cases" is this: evil is not defined but what it is, but by what it isn't.
Evil is to good as dark is to light.
But the study did not say that the East Asians EXPRESSED fear differently, so you are reaching a conclusion not in evidence.
The article explicitly says that East Asians misread fear as surprise. In order to reach the conclusion you are reaching another study must be done. Which is actually what I would like to see, a study looking to see how accurately Westerners perceive emotions on the faces of East Asians and how accurately East Asians perceive the emotions on the faces of Westerners.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL released its first DOS version in 1991 and its first Windows version in 1992. So it started to become a major player in 1991, the Internet came into its own in 1994 (one could argue for 1992 or 1993). With the advent of the Internet for the masses, AOL became obsolete. However, it took most people several years to realize that they were paying a premium price to AOL for access to content that was available for much less.
The reason that auto manufacturers went with parallel hybrid drives was because of U.S. tax laws. At one point, (I don't remember when the law was passed) there was a tax break available for buying a hybrid car, but the way the law was written cars with series hybrid drives didn't qualify for the tax break, only cars with parallel hybrid drives.
Why is it that in this day and age the movement of the market (and the whole underpinnings of the global economy) is based on things like the perception of how someone wrote a press release? It seems crazy to me that we put up with things like this. However IANAE (economist) so I have no idea how structure our economy differently
The problem is that as an investor, if you are invested in a company that is basically sound, but is currently in a weak market position, if a lot of people perceive that this current weak position is a fundamental flaw in the company, their reaction to that perception can make it a reality.
I thought the AOL purchase of Time-Warner was a brilliant move on the part of AOL. It was their only chance of survival. I think it could have worked if Time-Warner's phobia about Internet distribution and piracy hadn't proceeded to infect AOL.
If the new football league is successful, it will gradually become a better place to evaluate talent than college. The new league will have the players playing against a more even level of competition, so NFL scouts will know that a guy in the new league who looks like he can play in the NFL actually can play in the NFL.
In college basketball, most NBA level players only play one or two years anyway. At this time, the level of play in the European professional leagues is not up to NBA standards, so guys who aren't ready to play in the NBA can go over there for some seasoning, rather than playing for "free" in college here.
Just from looking at a WS ID, we know just about where it is. If a user calls and only knows their building and room, we can easily isolate the machine.
Until you move it, and then you have to rename it. A better idea is to give it an arbitrary name and then add location info in DNS TXT records if you want them to be easily accessible and not tied to the PC's actual identity.
So, going to the database to look up where a computer is every time there is a problem with communicating with it is less effort than renaming it every time you move it? How often do you move the computers where you work?
Except that all of the PC's at my office are located at places that are difficult to read anything on the case. Desk space is valuable, the PC case sits somewhere out of the way (usually under the desk).
Since our computers have different software configurations depending on which department uses them, they are named by department and a number. Since I have to change the software licensing database when they change department anyway, it is no real hassle to change the name in the database at the same time.
Actually, there are two new developments that may suck the money out of college sports. There is a new professional football league starting up this fall that intends to be a sort of minor league to the NFL . They are going to offer jobs to guys who either were big name college guys who couldn't quite hack it in the NFL or guys who never got a chance to show their stuff to the NFL. If this league is successful, they will gradually cut into college football since they will provide an alternative to guys who go to college just to play football.
The second development is the guy who went pro in Europe right out of high school rather than playing college basketball, followed up by the guy who dropped out of high school to go pro in Europe. If these guys are successful, more kids will go that route and gradually cut into college basketball.
Clearly these policies will need to change or colleges will no longer be an effective means of higher education.
I see a problem here, you used the future tense. That implies that colleges are currently an effective means of higher education. This is certainly subject to debate.
Most of the schools in the SEC are state universities. That means that the stadiums they play in are government property. The SEC is not a truly "private business" so your argument does not hold up. If all of the schools in the SEC were private institutions, you would be right. However, even in that case protest would be appropriate. It is perfectly appropriate to protest the actions of a private business, as long as one recognizes the legal right of a private business to act contrary to your beliefs as to how it should act.
a) Remove the monopolies granted to the cable and other ISPs (I presume your solution) or b) Set up a better system of rules the providers have to play by and actually enforce them.
What makes you think the new, expanded rules will be better, they will just concentrate more power in the hands of the people who screwed it up in the first place.
In option (a) the government must interfere (again) to "open" up the playing field so to speak.
No, all the government has to do is allow competitors in. If you want to put in wires or cable or fiber optics, you need to get permission from whoever owns the land. If the incumbent has wires or cables or fiber optic in public right of way, you can put wires or... there too. If you need to dig, you need to put things back the way they were when you started.
At least in option (b) the rules are set up front. Theoretically they are more transparent because it's an explicit statement of, "these are the rules", and we would potentially get a say in the process.
You mean like those bills in Congress that it is "unreasonable" to expect Congressmen to read and understand before they vote on them?
Nor should a private company be my only option for local utilities service.
You are absolutely right, you should have the ability to choose between several private companies.
If it wasn't for government intervention in medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) in the first place, health care costs would not have skyrocketed the way they did. Before the institution of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs rose at the same rate as inflation. Immediately after the institution of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs bean rising much faster than inflation. And my question is, what are you going to do when the people making those decision are the government, so there is no longer anybody to turn to to challenge their decisions?
Cable TV and ISP's would exist even if the government had not granted regional monopolies to certain companies. It would have taken slightly longer for cable to get rolled out, but there is enough money to be made to support more than one cable TV provider in most areas.
The system of local franchise agreement was created by the Federal government. The fact that it was dopey was a result of the hodgepodge of local governments all doing things a little bit differently.
I suspect that fixing the mess that the government made of cable TV (and now Internet) will require additional Federal regulation. However, we should look for regulation that will increase competition rather than regulation that merely increases the power of government (by regulating and protecting the incumbent monopolies).
It's Comcast's hard earned money, they should be able to expand their monopoly as far as they can without government interference.
You are absolutely correct, except for the fact that Comcast HAS a monopoly because of government interference.
The answer to problems created by government regulation is not more regulation.
Why don't you take of your partisan blinders and look at how the free market treats consumers.
The last 3 places I have lived at had only 1 cable company "choice".
Why do you think that is?
Because the government has encouraged there to be only one cable company in most areas. I don't know what the current laws are, but I remember when cable was being rolled out. Different cable companies would apply for the franchise to operate in a particular area (if it was an area that was lucrative enough that more than one was interested), then the local government would grant a monopoly to one of them. I remember some major scandals when it was discovered that some local officials were accepting what amounted to bribes to grant the local franchise to one company or another.
So, to reiterate, the answer to your question as to why in most areas there is no competition among cable providers is that the government set it up that way.
Thanks for the heads up about shaky cam. That puts "District 9" on the "maybe when I can watch it for free" list. It was already suspect because of everything I had seen about it "having a message". Generally, I don't watch movies for a message, I watch movies to be entertained. There are exceptions, but so far no one has said anything about the message that puts "District 9" into that elite category.
In the U.S. academic texts don't have "cover prices". In the U.S. publishers sell text books "net price". That is the publisher has a price that they charge the retailer (who must mark it up some amount to cover their costs and to make any profit).
The Justice Department has no more authority to give orders to the members of the Maricopa Sheriff's Office than it does to any other person in the U.S.. As far as the Sheriff's office raiding Government offices, law enforcement often does this when criminal behavior is suspected of other Government officers.
This is a case where there is a conflict between the powers assigned to different parts of the government. There is a reason that there is no clear, easy way to resolve this conflict. This was, at least partially, intentional on the part of those who set this up.
No, our immigration laws are set up primarily to please two groups of people: those who want cheap labor that doesn't fall under U.S. labor and wage regulations, and those attempting to protect unskilled union jobs from competition.
If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.
Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud. That means that the majority of people who live in his jurisdiction who are both eligible to vote and care enough to vote support Joe Arpaio.
So you are saying that the researchers are reaching a conclusion not in evidence. That may be. However, we cannot reach your conclusion based on the evidence of the study. By your argument, the only conclusion we can reach from the study is that people from different regions read facial expressions differently (which is what I said in my original post).
The study does not give us any evidence that the faces of East Asians actually express emotion differently, only that they read the facial expression of emotion differently.
They looked at what happened to the banks that took money and wanted no parts of it. Taking the money won't protect them against net neutrality being enshrined into law. This Administration has shown a tendency to spring new conditions on recipients of government largess after they have it (not that this is an unusual tendency for politicians, just that most are more subtle).
The problem with this attempt and with your "cases" is this: evil is not defined but what it is, but by what it isn't.
Evil is to good as dark is to light.
But the study did not say that the East Asians EXPRESSED fear differently, so you are reaching a conclusion not in evidence.
The article explicitly says that East Asians misread fear as surprise. In order to reach the conclusion you are reaching another study must be done. Which is actually what I would like to see, a study looking to see how accurately Westerners perceive emotions on the faces of East Asians and how accurately East Asians perceive the emotions on the faces of Westerners.