Wait, you don't have sarcasm tags. It's not a voluntary action in that the consenting adults, or at least one of them, is agreeing to the transaction out of ignorance. If they knew the science better, they wouldn't buy the sawdust. I mean, that's why we don't allow children, they aren't to be trusted.
All a drug company should need to do is disclose what the drug contains and be liable for fraud if it deviates from this.
That's how the suppliment market works, herbal and otherwise. <sarcasm> That seems to work really well. Every knows suppliment commercials can be trusted, never have Dr. Oz shilling unproven stuff, and aren't a multi-billion dollar industry selling sawdust to gullible people.</sarcasm>
I don't think you're going to pick up votes, net, by promising to ease drug approval rules.
No, you'd get votes by promising new wonder-drugs. You would claim that easing the drug approval rules are teh mechanism. You'd also run as a Republican.
Now, I have no knowledge of if the approval rules are too strict. I know they have stupid loopholes. I'm just making a statement about how it would be sold to the public.
Well, that's because GP talked about how Google was most prevalent and also worst. It's redundant if you use TFA's data set to define worst as more prevalent.
And, frankly, Facebook is creepy because it's so much more prevalent than Google. Websites tracking me is just a much lower concern than turning all my friends into unpaid informants on my actions.
They included that the system being proposed must be able to distinguish friendly drones. So there's some plan for DOJ drones around prisons, or at least planning ahead.
"The worst perpetrator is Google, which tracks people on nearly 80 percent of sites, and does not respect DNT signals,"
That's the most prevelent. That does not necessarily mean the worst. It especially does not mean the worst when you say that "the worst is on most of the sites", implying that there is some other dimension to consider.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Facebook's collection of data isn't creepier than Google's.
What has made us tons safer after 9-11 is that now there would be reasonable quantity of the passengers who would challenge the hijackers
Well, you weren't supposed to fight back. Literally, the training was the crew would go along with whatever the hijackers wanted, and keep the damn customers sat down and calm. (Special cases like air marshals aside)
Which made sense, as the plane would land in some random country as a statement.
You can not convince me that any software that is not open source (with open source hardware btw) is safe or secure in any way. That's not what the NSA says tho
Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.
Also when Jadzea had the former lover who crossed current gender lines show up. And Roddenberry wanted to include a gay character in TNG, but dies before it could be put in.
e. It was basically Roddenberry's idealistic version of the USA in space. I mean, come on, the starship was named after one of the most staunchly pro-capitalist concepts ever.
Well, it's set in a post-scarcity communist utopia.The bridge crew was expressly made up of Americans, Russians and Japanese people in an era when fighting the "Japs" was a recent memory and the Russians were the new enemy, in a direct appeal to get over our differences. It featured the first inter-racial kiss as though black people and white people could get along (in spite of the still existent legal segregation). The one guy who was racist was shown as anachronistic.
But yeah, if you ignore everything and focus on the starship name, totally a paean to America!
The serieses normally required some time to come into their own. Is CBS willing to go a a few years til the beard gets grown on this new series, or will they pull the plug if it takes a while to catch on.
Tactical alert â" RED ALERT! â" took several seasons to fall into place.
Why would that be the case. Alerts are a fucking common thing IRL. The idea that it would take a while to think you had to be prepared "In Case Shit" seems far-fetched.
For what it's worth, I think that your list of rich men at the end probably do care about helping workers out. They just were born into so much money that "Well, why not just borrow a million from your dad to start a business" sounds like a viable strategy that everyone can follow. They probably do think that the only reason someone has a 5 figure income is because they don't care enough to actually work.
hen all companies have to pay it, thus all companies that wish to remain in business must raise their prices enough to cover it.
Assuming they weren't making enough profit before. If they're already charging what the market can bear, they're not likely to raise prices because of a tax increase. They are already making max profit, even if they have to give half of it away.
I tend to think most people who contributed greatly to mankind did it for non-monetary reasons. For power and fame, mostly.
But your situation sounds dangerously like standard objection to communism. You want to make many people's lives worse so that society, as a whole, is better off.
eventually, someone unlocks something, perhaps a last ditch effort to stay afloat
Which is one reason companies don't always try to put each other out of business. And about-to-fail competitors get bought out. I mean, it's a nice theory, and I get the justification. It just doesn't seem to bear out in practice. I mean, look at Pepsi and Coke (and your generic Cola), and how the price plummetted as they approached marginal costs. It's cheaper to buy decayed dinosaurs imported from across the globe to blow up in cars than to buy sugar water.
The low end doesn't ghet cut as much because it's actually priced about right.
Whatever else you want to say about capitalism, prices at or near marginal cost have never been considered "priced right". In fact, the only "priced right" theory has to do with crossing of supply and demand curves. The idea that supply wouldn't be artificially constrained to drive that price up is clearly, factually, incorrect. Even when there are multiple firms. Because they are engaged in long-term prisoner's dilemmas, and know they should cooperate.
Fast forward and there's no point in having the mid model so it just goes away.
Example please? Because cars and more.
f do you claim that healthy markets don't actually do any of the good things claimed for them? If that's the case, we'd better try Communism.
That's a false dilemma. For one, you're advantages have focused solely on costs. And things like "choice in clothing" is a good thing.
But, yeah, I think most people who talk about the efficiency of the markets need to pay more attention to all those reasonable conditions that need be met. Easy market entrance/exit. Lack of network/scale effects. Etc.
That would first require that you give an actual example of price discrimination that is actually good for the consumer.
I did provide such an example, although abstract and hypothetical, with the need to have business customers paying X and home customers paying X/20 to have suffienct marginal profit to cover the high fixed costs. You went on some diatribe about SLAs (which I never mentioned) and how that's product differentiation (which again, I never mentioned.) I am providing an example of how literally everyone wins due to price discrimination. Because the businesses pay X for a service they think is worth X. And customers pay X/20 for a service they think is worth X/20. And the service exists, which it wouldn't if the price wasn't discriminated.
Thanks for asking the right question. The answer, in truth, is yes. For both Apple and Google. Too many people think anti-trust only applies to monopolies, but it can apply to duopolies just as much.
However, antitrust isn't always spontaneous. I believe illegal product tying must be the result of a complaint brought with the regulators by an impacted competitor.
That said, both Apple and Google have paid their "no government interference" insurance ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations. So, in practice, it's unlikely something will happen.
So, you just want to keep "No True Scotsmaning" on a "healthy market" till it meets Econ 101? Or pay attention to what Econ 201 on up say are the regular and predictable failures markets constantly experience.
But what's the advantage of the first person to enable high-end features at mid-end prices? You know full well your competitors will follow suit, so your bump will be temporary. But the long term costs from no high end versions would be permanent.
Those are examples of price discrimination, with a thin veener of product discrimination. A different example is how airlines charge less for flights that include a weekend stay. That tends to eliminate price insensitive business travellers.
But my example actually didn't rely on SLAs or anything like that. I said without price discrimination, blatant or disguised, the fixed costs couldn't be covered and the industry would cease to exist.
Student versions are given out to hook the nexst generation, and also because sutdents are more likely to justify pirating it otherwise.
And your example of deactivated features happens all the fucking time in the real world. Laptops used to be famous for charging more for ethernet connections... but the ones "without" the connections had them behind the plastic punchouts. Totally played until noone cared about ethernet anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you don't have sarcasm tags. It's not a voluntary action in that the consenting adults, or at least one of them, is agreeing to the transaction out of ignorance. If they knew the science better, they wouldn't buy the sawdust. I mean, that's why we don't allow children, they aren't to be trusted.
We put all those regulations in place because the free market failed real;ly badly. See the current suppliments market.
That's how the suppliment market works, herbal and otherwise. <sarcasm> That seems to work really well. Every knows suppliment commercials can be trusted, never have Dr. Oz shilling unproven stuff, and aren't a multi-billion dollar industry selling sawdust to gullible people.</sarcasm>
No, you'd get votes by promising new wonder-drugs. You would claim that easing the drug approval rules are teh mechanism. You'd also run as a Republican.
Now, I have no knowledge of if the approval rules are too strict. I know they have stupid loopholes. I'm just making a statement about how it would be sold to the public.
Fixed the fastest isn't always the more important. Sometimes you really need to knnow when things are going to be fixed to plan for other things.
Well, that's because GP talked about how Google was most prevalent and also worst. It's redundant if you use TFA's data set to define worst as more prevalent.
And, frankly, Facebook is creepy because it's so much more prevalent than Google. Websites tracking me is just a much lower concern than turning all my friends into unpaid informants on my actions.
For someone who read the requirements, you missed that it had to operate at 1+ mile(s) away. That's a pretty fucking expensive net.
They included that the system being proposed must be able to distinguish friendly drones. So there's some plan for DOJ drones around prisons, or at least planning ahead.
That's the most prevelent. That does not necessarily mean the worst. It especially does not mean the worst when you say that "the worst is on most of the sites", implying that there is some other dimension to consider.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Facebook's collection of data isn't creepier than Google's.
Facebook is the worst offender. Google is number 2. Maybe number 3 depending on where you place Amazon
Well, you weren't supposed to fight back. Literally, the training was the crew would go along with whatever the hijackers wanted, and keep the damn customers sat down and calm. (Special cases like air marshals aside)
Which made sense, as the plane would land in some random country as a statement.
Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.
Oh, I guess I thought he was saying it was named after the USS Enterprise. Which is as iconic as US Naval ships get (at least in the modern era).
Also when Jadzea had the former lover who crossed current gender lines show up. And Roddenberry wanted to include a gay character in TNG, but dies before it could be put in.
Well, it's set in a post-scarcity communist utopia .The bridge crew was expressly made up of Americans, Russians and Japanese people in an era when fighting the "Japs" was a recent memory and the Russians were the new enemy, in a direct appeal to get over our differences. It featured the first inter-racial kiss as though black people and white people could get along (in spite of the still existent legal segregation). The one guy who was racist was shown as anachronistic.
But yeah, if you ignore everything and focus on the starship name, totally a paean to America!
The serieses normally required some time to come into their own. Is CBS willing to go a a few years til the beard gets grown on this new series, or will they pull the plug if it takes a while to catch on.
Why would that be the case. Alerts are a fucking common thing IRL. The idea that it would take a while to think you had to be prepared "In Case Shit" seems far-fetched.
For what it's worth, I think that your list of rich men at the end probably do care about helping workers out. They just were born into so much money that "Well, why not just borrow a million from your dad to start a business" sounds like a viable strategy that everyone can follow. They probably do think that the only reason someone has a 5 figure income is because they don't care enough to actually work.
Assuming they weren't making enough profit before. If they're already charging what the market can bear, they're not likely to raise prices because of a tax increase. They are already making max profit, even if they have to give half of it away.
I tend to think most people who contributed greatly to mankind did it for non-monetary reasons. For power and fame, mostly.
But your situation sounds dangerously like standard objection to communism. You want to make many people's lives worse so that society, as a whole, is better off.
Which is one reason companies don't always try to put each other out of business. And about-to-fail competitors get bought out. I mean, it's a nice theory, and I get the justification. It just doesn't seem to bear out in practice. I mean, look at Pepsi and Coke (and your generic Cola), and how the price plummetted as they approached marginal costs. It's cheaper to buy decayed dinosaurs imported from across the globe to blow up in cars than to buy sugar water.
Whatever else you want to say about capitalism, prices at or near marginal cost have never been considered "priced right". In fact, the only "priced right" theory has to do with crossing of supply and demand curves. The idea that supply wouldn't be artificially constrained to drive that price up is clearly, factually, incorrect. Even when there are multiple firms. Because they are engaged in long-term prisoner's dilemmas, and know they should cooperate.
Example please? Because cars and more.
That's a false dilemma. For one, you're advantages have focused solely on costs. And things like "choice in clothing" is a good thing.
But, yeah, I think most people who talk about the efficiency of the markets need to pay more attention to all those reasonable conditions that need be met. Easy market entrance/exit. Lack of network/scale effects. Etc.
I did provide such an example, although abstract and hypothetical, with the need to have business customers paying X and home customers paying X/20 to have suffienct marginal profit to cover the high fixed costs. You went on some diatribe about SLAs (which I never mentioned) and how that's product differentiation (which again, I never mentioned.) I am providing an example of how literally everyone wins due to price discrimination. Because the businesses pay X for a service they think is worth X. And customers pay X/20 for a service they think is worth X/20. And the service exists, which it wouldn't if the price wasn't discriminated.
Thanks for asking the right question. The answer, in truth, is yes. For both Apple and Google. Too many people think anti-trust only applies to monopolies, but it can apply to duopolies just as much.
However, antitrust isn't always spontaneous. I believe illegal product tying must be the result of a complaint brought with the regulators by an impacted competitor.
That said, both Apple and Google have paid their "no government interference" insurance ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations. So, in practice, it's unlikely something will happen.
So, you just want to keep "No True Scotsmaning" on a "healthy market" till it meets Econ 101? Or pay attention to what Econ 201 on up say are the regular and predictable failures markets constantly experience.
But what's the advantage of the first person to enable high-end features at mid-end prices? You know full well your competitors will follow suit, so your bump will be temporary. But the long term costs from no high end versions would be permanent.
Those are examples of price discrimination, with a thin veener of product discrimination. A different example is how airlines charge less for flights that include a weekend stay. That tends to eliminate price insensitive business travellers.
But my example actually didn't rely on SLAs or anything like that. I said without price discrimination, blatant or disguised, the fixed costs couldn't be covered and the industry would cease to exist.
Student versions are given out to hook the nexst generation, and also because sutdents are more likely to justify pirating it otherwise.
And your example of deactivated features happens all the fucking time in the real world. Laptops used to be famous for charging more for ethernet connections... but the ones "without" the connections had them behind the plastic punchouts. Totally played until noone cared about ethernet anymore.
Hey, the 40's were dangerous, sure, but a good chunk of the jobs were shooting other people with guns. Or hurriedly making more planes and bombs.