So what you're saying is that if you don't block ALL ads, then you might accidently find out about some products you might actually like? Maybe the ad industry isn't in so much trouble after all, as long as there's more Cloverfield-quality products, and less pop music.
It shouldn't be any more personal than a phone number is. Whenever someone calls me, I like to log them on my caller ID. I don't see a difference here. But what about if the phone company sells your phone number (no other information attached) along with a record of all the numbers you called and all the numbers that called you? Now your phone number is no longer just a means of communication.
The scary part is that they've been doing that for years WITH your other personal information!
Interesting idea. I wonder if it's economically feasible? How often do you take samples? How much blood do you need?
Also, is it even wrong to use a substance if it's new, and therefore not yet illegal? It certainly violates to spirit of the rules, if not the letter. You could probably make it reasonably inexpensive by doing it randomly, but at least once per year for each player. And, using HGH is *definitely* against the rules right now, so they could say that it is banned, and there may be future tests. Then, as new substances come out, they can say, "All samples taken after today may be tested for substance X."
You can't test for something that didn't exist yesterday. You can if you collect and store samples forever.
For example, no good test exisits for HGH. So, people are proposing taking samples from all MLB players, in the the hope that a future HGH test will exist. That way, you have an effective deterrent now, and you hopefully can humiliate cheaters later.
What are you talking about? Fines stopped the price fixing scheme?
They don't neccesarily have to stop a pricing scheme to be effective. The proper enforcement of existing laws should serve as an effective deterrent. If you get caught and fined, then it ruins the whole point to begin with.
Let's look at what happened in RAM price fixing history:
2001, Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung collude to fix prices on RDRAM.
2003, RDRAM is dead, Intel gives up hope. Reason? Price was too high.
2004, Discovery is made regarding price fixing.
2005, Found that companies colluded, were fined.
So let's see -- they stopped price fixing in 2003 because in 2005 they were fined?
You claim that in the case of collusion, a company will step in and make a ton of money. Who did that in this case? Even if someone tried, the resources of Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung combined could easily undercut until the new company until they go bankrupt, or just let them join the fold.
In reality, no new company could compete. Instead, we all missed out on RDRAM, and paid way too much for other kinds of RAM.
What sort of malarkey are you trying to pass off in order to be seen as correct? You didn't provide one source of information, you didn't properly compose an answer that could be reviewed easily.
I wish you had put this part at the end, so I could leave it without comment from me.
Thank God! I have competitors who have colluded together on numerous occasions to land contracts. It's called a boat race. "You win this one at a major profit, we'll win the next."
Apparently your competitors who have colluded together are fucking idiots. It should go "One of us will win all future contracts. The total sum of profits from these contracts will be split among us. Sometimes we'll take a loss, including the first one, but it will prevent a competitor from being in the race for long." See how it sucks if you're the competitor there? And think if you're the consumer!
Guess why my company has sustained steady, 10%-20% growth annually, for 15 years? Because we decided against colluding. Seven of our largest suppliers offer us kickbacks, which we said no to. We're more competitive without them.
Did you think of the possibility that you have a better product, and you compete on a level playing field? If people were colluding successfully in your market, then you wouldn't be profitable for long.
I _love_ collusion. It opens a huge market for those of us who want to compete. It's VERY easy to raise money to start a business in a competitive market, even if you need 9 figures.
Wait, what?! Part of the point of collusion is that others can't complete! You'll simply be undercut or removed from the shelves. Or the cost to enter the market is too high. And yes, 9 figures is too much in the markets were talking about: Printers/Ink and RAM.
The biggest reason we've seen fund-raisers fail is when venture capitalists ask: "How are the government regulations in that sector?"
Let's say you go to some VCs to ask for money to start a new, competing printer company. They ask the question, and you reply: "Good news: no regulation! The flip side, though, is that we can't actually sell our products in stores, because our competitors pay them a shitload of money to keep us out!" Think they'd still listen? At least with some anti-trust enforcement you might have a chance.
When government introduces new laws (supposedly to prevent monopolization), the smaller venture capitalists exit the market. The bigger ones stay, of course, because they're powerful enough to subvert, or even write, the government laws.
What exactly are saying here? That the goverment passes new laws (certainly not neccesarily in any of these 2 cases) that have the effect of forcing out smaller VCs, allowing the larget ones to take over and rewrite
The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law Court of law? Where have you been the past 6 years? You can expect to have more evidence extracted from you via waterboarding.
So this basically confirms what we've already read: that you've lost the cash you spent on a foreign key. The only significant part is that they're providing an avenue to replace your invalid key with a valid one.
The differences between the releases of the same software in different countries will always exist... think about what Westerners would say if more knew that Korean WoW players got to keep their beta characters! So, sorry you lost your cash. Hard lesson learned.
By seeding, people donate their own bandwidth to prevent the band's server from melting down. Whether or not they come back later to pay for the music is a completely different story, but as for me, I just did. Precisely! It makes me wonder... what if bands started following suit and posting links to torrents and an optional donation box on an official band website, especially ones that have come and said that already encourage people to download their album. Would a label really sue one of their own bands for copyright infringment... of the band's own music?
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that if you don't block ALL ads, then you might accidently find out about some products you might actually like? Maybe the ad industry isn't in so much trouble after all, as long as there's more Cloverfield-quality products, and less pop music.
The scary part is that they've been doing that for years WITH your other personal information!
Also, is it even wrong to use a substance if it's new, and therefore not yet illegal? It certainly violates to spirit of the rules, if not the letter. You could probably make it reasonably inexpensive by doing it randomly, but at least once per year for each player. And, using HGH is *definitely* against the rules right now, so they could say that it is banned, and there may be future tests. Then, as new substances come out, they can say, "All samples taken after today may be tested for substance X."
You just convinced me to give up playing WoW and collecting epics!
What are you talking about? Fines stopped the price fixing scheme?
They don't neccesarily have to stop a pricing scheme to be effective. The proper enforcement of existing laws should serve as an effective deterrent. If you get caught and fined, then it ruins the whole point to begin with.
Let's look at what happened in RAM price fixing history:
2001, Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung collude to fix prices on RDRAM.
2003, RDRAM is dead, Intel gives up hope. Reason? Price was too high.
2004, Discovery is made regarding price fixing.
2005, Found that companies colluded, were fined.
So let's see -- they stopped price fixing in 2003 because in 2005 they were fined?
You claim that in the case of collusion, a company will step in and make a ton of money. Who did that in this case? Even if someone tried, the resources of Elpida, Infineon, Hynix, Micron, and Samsung combined could easily undercut until the new company until they go bankrupt, or just let them join the fold.
In reality, no new company could compete. Instead, we all missed out on RDRAM, and paid way too much for other kinds of RAM.
What sort of malarkey are you trying to pass off in order to be seen as correct? You didn't provide one source of information, you didn't properly compose an answer that could be reviewed easily.
I wish you had put this part at the end, so I could leave it without comment from me.
Thank God! I have competitors who have colluded together on numerous occasions to land contracts. It's called a boat race. "You win this one at a major profit, we'll win the next."
Apparently your competitors who have colluded together are fucking idiots. It should go "One of us will win all future contracts. The total sum of profits from these contracts will be split among us. Sometimes we'll take a loss, including the first one, but it will prevent a competitor from being in the race for long." See how it sucks if you're the competitor there? And think if you're the consumer!
Guess why my company has sustained steady, 10%-20% growth annually, for 15 years? Because we decided against colluding. Seven of our largest suppliers offer us kickbacks, which we said no to. We're more competitive without them.
Did you think of the possibility that you have a better product, and you compete on a level playing field? If people were colluding successfully in your market, then you wouldn't be profitable for long.
I _love_ collusion. It opens a huge market for those of us who want to compete. It's VERY easy to raise money to start a business in a competitive market, even if you need 9 figures.
Wait, what?! Part of the point of collusion is that others can't complete! You'll simply be undercut or removed from the shelves. Or the cost to enter the market is too high. And yes, 9 figures is too much in the markets were talking about: Printers/Ink and RAM.
The biggest reason we've seen fund-raisers fail is when venture capitalists ask: "How are the government regulations in that sector?"
Let's say you go to some VCs to ask for money to start a new, competing printer company. They ask the question, and you reply: "Good news: no regulation! The flip side, though, is that we can't actually sell our products in stores, because our competitors pay them a shitload of money to keep us out!" Think they'd still listen? At least with some anti-trust enforcement you might have a chance.
When government introduces new laws (supposedly to prevent monopolization), the smaller venture capitalists exit the market. The bigger ones stay, of course, because they're powerful enough to subvert, or even write, the government laws.
What exactly are saying here? That the goverment passes new laws (certainly not neccesarily in any of these 2 cases) that have the effect of forcing out smaller VCs, allowing the larget ones to take over and rewrite
So this basically confirms what we've already read: that you've lost the cash you spent on a foreign key. The only significant part is that they're providing an avenue to replace your invalid key with a valid one.
The differences between the releases of the same software in different countries will always exist... think about what Westerners would say if more knew that Korean WoW players got to keep their beta characters! So, sorry you lost your cash. Hard lesson learned.