I already have a cap (Yes I'm Australian, don't start the whole "OMG WE'RE SICK OF AUSTRALIANS IN SLASHDOT" BS. We're the best friends you'll have now since we've been on caps for years and can tell you how best to stay within them). It's a relatively large one compared to others, domestically at 150GB. I use it all up mainly on torrents for things like movies, games and the odd program and Linux iso.
It's not hard to monitor usage especially if most of it comes through downloads and not through browsing. Browsing can be a killer. Especially these days when a lot of sites have embedded video ads. Those, plus 5-10MB animated.gif's that you don't expect can really eat into your bandwidth. Best solution is Firefox with Adblocker and NoScript. Will save you a lot of headache when you check your usage and wonder "Where did all these GB's come from!".
While a lot of Russia's actions are to be condemned it's naive and one-sided to say that we have a new "Cold War" upon us due to the aggressive nature of Putin and Medvedev. The Cold War wasn't simply the USSR vs. the USA it was them and all their allies against each other mainly in geographical locations slightly removed from both superpowers. The new stuff that's going on is all within Russia's sphere of influence and the flipside of it is saying that the "Cold War is back!" if the US started intervening in South America (Which they already do).
The only reason it's a return of the Cold War when Russia pulls of crap like Georgia etc. is because the US, through Nato, has a huge presence in that area, something Russia doesn't have in the American hemisphere. US warships are currently crowding the Black Sea, a staunch US ally killed several hundred Russian civilians, the US is currently establishing missile basis in two Russia neighbouring countries and we say that *Putin* is bringing the Cold War back?
Say I have my entrance portal at the base of a cliff and my exit portal at the top of the cliff. At the bottom, I have zero energy. Once I enter the portal and end up hovering for that split second at the top of the cliff, I have quite a lot of potential energy. Doesn't work!
"it's called "work"." You mean labour? But even after paying the workers, the seller still makes profit. "A loaf of bread is worth more than it's constituent ingredients." That's the crux. It isn't worth more than the ingredients + labor, but it's the job of the capitalist to convince you it is.
The most rewarding part of an internet debate. When the person you're arguing against gives up and makes snide, off-topic remarks as opposed to constructing real arguments.
You realise that there's a finite amount of goods and hence money around the world right? And since you've accepted yourself that money = goods, when profit is created on both sides of the transaction in money terms this is the same as you having a net "creation" of goods. If this continues for every transaction then you end up magically making more goods than exist.
But I guess if you've come out of a system spewing the same "Capitalism is good, everyone wins" tripe non-stop that's what you'll think.
Then again, I don't think you'll find many notable economists backing up your idea of limitless profit within a capitalist system.
Final point, your analogy is so ridiculously stupid it isn't even funny - though I did chuckle. You're claiming that because I paid for something, that hypothetically would cost me more from another source, I've profited? That's like saying if buy Item A from Shop 1 for $20, and it's available at Shop 2 for $30 I've profited $10. No, you haven't "profited". You haven't "made" any money. You've "spent" slightly less than you would have if you bought it elsewhere, but you're still paying more than the worth of the product since the person you're buying it from is making his own profit which can only be created by charging you more.
Er, what? Seriously, I don't mean to sound offensive but you really seem to have a lack of understanding of basic, basic economics. When I buy bread I don't make a profit. The shop I buy it from makes a profit and the wholesaler makes a profit. The guy making the bread and the customer are the ones losing out. If you take out the 10% profit cut from the wholesaler and the retailer, you either get the bread maker getting paid the same and the customer getting his bread cheaper, the maker getting paid more and the customer paying the same or somewhere in the middle.
If they don't exist, then you don't get the fast-speed services, right? So on one hand you have in the US bitching about the fact their internet sucks, and then you have them bitching when companies build the infrastructure to give them faster internet...?
Do these nodes etc. not have to go somewhere? Is there any tested way of safely and efficiently burying them or something? Obviously it would cost more. I wonder what customers would rather do, pay more to have them hidden away or complain that they have put up them.
Wow so we have someone who clearly missed Economics 101. You need a citation required to show that profit is cost subtracted from revenue? And you think it takes some kind of inherent "skill" to raise the price by a certain percentage? There's some people you can't convince, and I'm not even going to try.
I don't see the logic in "If they're doing, I may as well do it as well". Mind you, selling a product for $30 doesn't necessarily mean your margins are smaller. You could just be paying employees less. The "problem", when it comes to the developing world and selling to them, in my opinion, is not with the relative profit margins but with the idea of profit in general.
We absolutely should get into lengthy debates about "the nature and ethics surrounding the modern economic system".
Meh, you started it.
The fact that he makes money out of it tells you that people want the phones
Wrong. Generating revenue (The income) tells you that people want the phones. Generating profit (Revenue - cost) tells you that he's either underpaying his employees or overcharging his customers, or both. That's where "profit" comes from. It's not some magical formula that's so hard to understand and explain. You pay $20 to make something, you sell it for $30. You've just made money from nothing. Good job, you win capitalism.
When we're talking about the third world and when we're putting up articles because we think that the person in question is doing something noble (Seriously, if that's not the suggestion wtf is the point of this story?) I think we can expect that he at least pays his workers properly or that he doesn't gouge his customers who live in poverty stricken countries.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
How the hell is this "Insightful". There's a gaping flaw in the premise.
Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies.
Oh yeah? You want to give me a few examples of "Politically free, free market societies" that don't "suppress political discourse"? You can't do it. Countries that were once beacons of "liberal-democratic" hope like the UK and the US have become riddled with censorship, political repression and eroding human and civil rights. Other countries that have managed to a certain extent to keep some of these liberal principles aren't really "free market". Then again, it's pretty easy to construct a case showing that no country on the planet is "free market".
What's even funnier is that you start talking about how we in "The West" hold the government to account for its failures. Have you been reading some of the Slashdot articles of the past seven years?
The summary makes it out as though he's some kind of philanthropist giving away free phones because of some kind of altruistic motive. But from the article we see:
"O'Brien has built a US$2.2-billion personal fortune by dominating the mobile business in a dozen poverty-stricken countries (in all, he's in 27 countries and territories)".
So we have another non-story. The story could be called "Someone else making billions of dollars by tapping into new markets". Even without getting into lengthy debates about the nature and ethics surrounding the modern economic system, it's really drawing a long bow trying to portray this guy as a defender of the third world. Not only because he's only giving them cell phones for god's sake, not like it's medicine or anything, but he's making billions of dollars out of it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you been saving that up in some kind of .txt file, waiting for your chance at first post?
I already have a cap (Yes I'm Australian, don't start the whole "OMG WE'RE SICK OF AUSTRALIANS IN SLASHDOT" BS. We're the best friends you'll have now since we've been on caps for years and can tell you how best to stay within them). It's a relatively large one compared to others, domestically at 150GB. I use it all up mainly on torrents for things like movies, games and the odd program and Linux iso.
It's not hard to monitor usage especially if most of it comes through downloads and not through browsing. Browsing can be a killer. Especially these days when a lot of sites have embedded video ads. Those, plus 5-10MB animated .gif's that you don't expect can really eat into your bandwidth. Best solution is Firefox with Adblocker and NoScript. Will save you a lot of headache when you check your usage and wonder "Where did all these GB's come from!".
While a lot of Russia's actions are to be condemned it's naive and one-sided to say that we have a new "Cold War" upon us due to the aggressive nature of Putin and Medvedev. The Cold War wasn't simply the USSR vs. the USA it was them and all their allies against each other mainly in geographical locations slightly removed from both superpowers. The new stuff that's going on is all within Russia's sphere of influence and the flipside of it is saying that the "Cold War is back!" if the US started intervening in South America (Which they already do).
The only reason it's a return of the Cold War when Russia pulls of crap like Georgia etc. is because the US, through Nato, has a huge presence in that area, something Russia doesn't have in the American hemisphere. US warships are currently crowding the Black Sea, a staunch US ally killed several hundred Russian civilians, the US is currently establishing missile basis in two Russia neighbouring countries and we say that *Putin* is bringing the Cold War back?
Portal breaks it!
Say I have my entrance portal at the base of a cliff and my exit portal at the top of the cliff. At the bottom, I have zero energy. Once I enter the portal and end up hovering for that split second at the top of the cliff, I have quite a lot of potential energy. Doesn't work!
"it's called "work"." You mean labour? But even after paying the workers, the seller still makes profit. "A loaf of bread is worth more than it's constituent ingredients." That's the crux. It isn't worth more than the ingredients + labor, but it's the job of the capitalist to convince you it is.
Ahaha.
The most rewarding part of an internet debate. When the person you're arguing against gives up and makes snide, off-topic remarks as opposed to constructing real arguments.
Thanks. =)
You realise that there's a finite amount of goods and hence money around the world right? And since you've accepted yourself that money = goods, when profit is created on both sides of the transaction in money terms this is the same as you having a net "creation" of goods. If this continues for every transaction then you end up magically making more goods than exist.
But I guess if you've come out of a system spewing the same "Capitalism is good, everyone wins" tripe non-stop that's what you'll think.
Then again, I don't think you'll find many notable economists backing up your idea of limitless profit within a capitalist system.
Final point, your analogy is so ridiculously stupid it isn't even funny - though I did chuckle. You're claiming that because I paid for something, that hypothetically would cost me more from another source, I've profited? That's like saying if buy Item A from Shop 1 for $20, and it's available at Shop 2 for $30 I've profited $10. No, you haven't "profited". You haven't "made" any money. You've "spent" slightly less than you would have if you bought it elsewhere, but you're still paying more than the worth of the product since the person you're buying it from is making his own profit which can only be created by charging you more.
Hmm so you think in every transaction, both parties are making a profit? Wow, I had no idea that people have such a poor knowledge of capitalism.
Er, what? Seriously, I don't mean to sound offensive but you really seem to have a lack of understanding of basic, basic economics. When I buy bread I don't make a profit. The shop I buy it from makes a profit and the wholesaler makes a profit. The guy making the bread and the customer are the ones losing out. If you take out the 10% profit cut from the wholesaler and the retailer, you either get the bread maker getting paid the same and the customer getting his bread cheaper, the maker getting paid more and the customer paying the same or somewhere in the middle.
You do understand that I'm talking specifically about developing nations, making $2 billion in profit and then being portrayed as an altruist?
Wow it looks he came back and modded us offtopic as well.
If they don't exist, then you don't get the fast-speed services, right? So on one hand you have in the US bitching about the fact their internet sucks, and then you have them bitching when companies build the infrastructure to give them faster internet...?
I think it'd be pretty ironic if someone with my perspective on the world and the dominant economic system turned into a venture capitalist...
Woo, turning general ideas/thoughts/opinions into personal attacks against posters. My favourite part about Slashdot =)
Do these nodes etc. not have to go somewhere? Is there any tested way of safely and efficiently burying them or something? Obviously it would cost more. I wonder what customers would rather do, pay more to have them hidden away or complain that they have put up them.
Wow so we have someone who clearly missed Economics 101. You need a citation required to show that profit is cost subtracted from revenue? And you think it takes some kind of inherent "skill" to raise the price by a certain percentage? There's some people you can't convince, and I'm not even going to try.
They're hardly "Enforcing" a monopoly if an Irishman with an MBA can stroll in and sell some phones.
I don't see the logic in "If they're doing, I may as well do it as well". Mind you, selling a product for $30 doesn't necessarily mean your margins are smaller. You could just be paying employees less. The "problem", when it comes to the developing world and selling to them, in my opinion, is not with the relative profit margins but with the idea of profit in general.
We absolutely should get into lengthy debates about "the nature and ethics surrounding the modern economic system".
Meh, you started it.
The fact that he makes money out of it tells you that people want the phones
Wrong. Generating revenue (The income) tells you that people want the phones. Generating profit (Revenue - cost) tells you that he's either underpaying his employees or overcharging his customers, or both. That's where "profit" comes from. It's not some magical formula that's so hard to understand and explain. You pay $20 to make something, you sell it for $30. You've just made money from nothing. Good job, you win capitalism.
When we're talking about the third world and when we're putting up articles because we think that the person in question is doing something noble (Seriously, if that's not the suggestion wtf is the point of this story?) I think we can expect that he at least pays his workers properly or that he doesn't gouge his customers who live in poverty stricken countries.
How the hell is this "Insightful". There's a gaping flaw in the premise.
Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies.
Oh yeah? You want to give me a few examples of "Politically free, free market societies" that don't "suppress political discourse"? You can't do it. Countries that were once beacons of "liberal-democratic" hope like the UK and the US have become riddled with censorship, political repression and eroding human and civil rights. Other countries that have managed to a certain extent to keep some of these liberal principles aren't really "free market". Then again, it's pretty easy to construct a case showing that no country on the planet is "free market".
What's even funnier is that you start talking about how we in "The West" hold the government to account for its failures. Have you been reading some of the Slashdot articles of the past seven years?
The summary makes it out as though he's some kind of philanthropist giving away free phones because of some kind of altruistic motive. But from the article we see:
"O'Brien has built a US$2.2-billion personal fortune by dominating the mobile business in a dozen poverty-stricken countries (in all, he's in 27 countries and territories)".
So we have another non-story. The story could be called "Someone else making billions of dollars by tapping into new markets". Even without getting into lengthy debates about the nature and ethics surrounding the modern economic system, it's really drawing a long bow trying to portray this guy as a defender of the third world. Not only because he's only giving them cell phones for god's sake, not like it's medicine or anything, but he's making billions of dollars out of it as well.
Good work Slashdot.
I submitted this story hours ago and not even a mention of the recent case in this non-article.
http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=837685
I actually found pics of this particular Slashdotter after like 3 seconds of Google.
But I'm too scared to post in case she hacks my account. Oooooooooooooh, irony.
Woosh...
Oh come on. You'd have to go back a few decades for that.