Completely wrong. Amazon and everyone else were NOT free to offer the books for a lower price, that is the whole point.
In the normal wholesale model, the retailer and wholesaler negotiate a price for the retailer to by the goods. The retailer can then retail those goods for whatever price they want. If some retailer wants a 30% profit on the item, another retailer can take 20% and beat them on price. That is competition.
In a normal, non-fixed, agency model the producer and retailer negotiate the markup. The producer sets the retail price and gives the retailer a cut of it. If the retailer takes a smaller cut, then the retail price they sell for can be lower. That is competition.
What Apple and the publishers did was make it so that no matter how little cut another retailer would take, the retail price was never below Apples price, and they ALWAYS got 30%. There is no opportunity at all for another retailer to beat Apple on price, and Apple has absolutely no risk because they always get their 30%. That is about as uncompetitive as you can get.
Only if you are dumb enough to think that the price to the consumer is related to the cost of production. Cost of production may set the minimum that a producer will sell for. The actual selling price is what people will pay. Pretty simple, actually.
You can set your own prices however you want. What you can not do, and Apple did, is make it so all your competitors must raise their prices to match yours.
Oh please. The reason the FDA cracked down on colloidial silver manufacturers has NOTHING to do with the eeebil drug companies and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there is no proper scientific evidence showing it is safe and effective. Is there some special reason colloidial silver should be exempt from this requirement?
So do the work required to get it approved by the FDA. Sure it takes a lot of money, but you're the ones claiming that the money and the ability to recoup it is of no importance.
First, I am not assuming anything, I am just reading their document.
It seems there are some recent developments you may not have heard of. These are called stairs, ramps, elevators, and escalators. These new technologies allow places like Chicago and Disney World to have magical transportation systems 20ft in the air, without having to ever come to ground level. Other cities are even starting to use these amazing new things to put transportation systems under the ground! You should check it out.
Also, in the still-unread document, they list projected costs, including $700M for tunneling, and $1B for land and permitting. Where do you get this idiotic 'for free' idea?
Someone else who didn't bother to read the proposal, but knows all about it. The references to gas pipelines are about construction techniques, not layout. The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away. There is a tunnel through a mountain that is too high.
Now that I look at it more, that math is a big WTF. The 'A' in that formula is not in units of 'G's, it is in m/s^2. Since 1G is about 9.8m/s^2, the correct formula is 10.78 = (166)^2/r or r=(166)^2/10.78, or 2.5km.
Instead of just assuming you know what they are doing, and using bad math to prove them wrong, why not actually READ the document and see what they are ACTUALLY proposing?
I think your math is off. According to their whitepaper, the turning radius at 1220km/h (339m/s) is 23.5km. Plugging that into your formula gives a centripetal acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, or 0.5g.
While they are mostly following I-5, they deviate when necessary to smooth the turns. That is one of the reasons it is built on pylons.
Where do they claim it can do sharper turns? The route they lay out in their whitepaper is designed so there are no sharp turns, and no g-forces greater than 0.5g, which can be 'banked'.
Except that their projected travel time is 35 minutes, which is quicker than a plane. And it is supposed to use about 1/10th the energy per person to make that trip. And instead of 'dozens' of flights a day, it leaves every 2 minutes (every 30 seconds during peak time).
Most of the time it is coasting, so a power loss would not cause it to stop. If one does get stuck, they have emergency air, and the capsules behind the stuck one would drive themselves back to the station with onboard motors. The life support systems are battery powered. And why would it take 5-6 hours for emergency help to arrive? This thing is not in the middle of nowhere, it is following I-5 between LA and SF.
You're not making any sense. The 'they' you are complaining about being paid are the employees, the suppliers, the landlord, the utility company, etc. 'They' are not taking any risk at all, nor should they be expected to.
However, SOMEONE is paying out all that money. THEY are the ones taking a risk. If they never succeed they don't get paid, they are out their entire investment. However, if they DO eventually succeed, then it is perfectly reasonable to use the profits from that success to cover the costs of past and future failures. The reason they can have those profits is that they don't have to compete on price with all the people who just sit on their asses doing nothing until someone else comes along and invents something that works, and thus have NONE of the expenses associated with development, including the cost of failure.
You are entirely wrong about there being no risk - there is huge risk. However, your 'no patent protection' idea means that there is ONLY risk, and no possible reward. That is not exactly how to 'advance the sciences and useful arts'.
Here is my question about the 'cry wolf' thing. In the story, the moral was not that people started ignoring the kid, it is that they ignored him even when there was a real threat. So why doesn't that happen here? Doesn't the cry wolf effect make the predators of the aphids that much more effective? Or is the problem that the predators are also a problem for the crops?
Yes, it is well known that businesses (like farming) use the highest cost option when there are cheaper alternatives available. That is why the farms switched to GMO even though cheaper (or free) seeds are available - because it drives their cost UP. Not too smart, are you?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, they discovered HSM only 40 years after it was introduced. Amazing.
What have they done that is illegal?
Completely wrong. Amazon and everyone else were NOT free to offer the books for a lower price, that is the whole point.
In the normal wholesale model, the retailer and wholesaler negotiate a price for the retailer to by the goods. The retailer can then retail those goods for whatever price they want. If some retailer wants a 30% profit on the item, another retailer can take 20% and beat them on price. That is competition.
In a normal, non-fixed, agency model the producer and retailer negotiate the markup. The producer sets the retail price and gives the retailer a cut of it. If the retailer takes a smaller cut, then the retail price they sell for can be lower. That is competition.
What Apple and the publishers did was make it so that no matter how little cut another retailer would take, the retail price was never below Apples price, and they ALWAYS got 30%. There is no opportunity at all for another retailer to beat Apple on price, and Apple has absolutely no risk because they always get their 30%. That is about as uncompetitive as you can get.
Only if you are dumb enough to think that the price to the consumer is related to the cost of production. Cost of production may set the minimum that a producer will sell for. The actual selling price is what people will pay. Pretty simple, actually.
You can set your own prices however you want. What you can not do, and Apple did, is make it so all your competitors must raise their prices to match yours.
It is called 'being an employee'. You trade in the ability to get rich for the relative safety of a steady paycheck.
Britain had 999 30 years before the US had 911. Your grandfather may have had something to do with 911, but he did not 'invent' it.
But the owner of those APIs (Novell) says it is OK.
Oh please. The reason the FDA cracked down on colloidial silver manufacturers has NOTHING to do with the eeebil drug companies and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there is no proper scientific evidence showing it is safe and effective. Is there some special reason colloidial silver should be exempt from this requirement?
So do the work required to get it approved by the FDA. Sure it takes a lot of money, but you're the ones claiming that the money and the ability to recoup it is of no importance.
First, I am not assuming anything, I am just reading their document.
It seems there are some recent developments you may not have heard of. These are called stairs, ramps, elevators, and escalators. These new technologies allow places like Chicago and Disney World to have magical transportation systems 20ft in the air, without having to ever come to ground level. Other cities are even starting to use these amazing new things to put transportation systems under the ground! You should check it out.
Also, in the still-unread document, they list projected costs, including $700M for tunneling, and $1B for land and permitting. Where do you get this idiotic 'for free' idea?
Hence the sentence that says there is a tunnel through the mountain.
Someone else who didn't bother to read the proposal, but knows all about it. The references to gas pipelines are about construction techniques, not layout. The thing is proposed to be built on pylons 20 to 100 feet tall. All those dips and valleys and hills and streams just went away. There is a tunnel through a mountain that is too high.
Now that I look at it more, that math is a big WTF. The 'A' in that formula is not in units of 'G's, it is in m/s^2. Since 1G is about 9.8m/s^2, the correct formula is 10.78 = (166)^2/r or r=(166)^2/10.78, or 2.5km.
Instead of just assuming you know what they are doing, and using bad math to prove them wrong, why not actually READ the document and see what they are ACTUALLY proposing?
Read more than 2 pages. Pages 44-50 show the details, including the turning radii and the deviations from I-5.
I think your math is off. According to their whitepaper, the turning radius at 1220km/h (339m/s) is 23.5km. Plugging that into your formula gives a centripetal acceleration of 4.9m/s^2, or 0.5g.
While they are mostly following I-5, they deviate when necessary to smooth the turns. That is one of the reasons it is built on pylons.
Where do they claim it can do sharper turns? The route they lay out in their whitepaper is designed so there are no sharp turns, and no g-forces greater than 0.5g, which can be 'banked'.
Their whitepaper, starting on page 39.
Except that their projected travel time is 35 minutes, which is quicker than a plane. And it is supposed to use about 1/10th the energy per person to make that trip. And instead of 'dozens' of flights a day, it leaves every 2 minutes (every 30 seconds during peak time).
Their proposed route never exceeds 0.5g in any direction, and the capsules can bank.
Most of the time it is coasting, so a power loss would not cause it to stop. If one does get stuck, they have emergency air, and the capsules behind the stuck one would drive themselves back to the station with onboard motors. The life support systems are battery powered. And why would it take 5-6 hours for emergency help to arrive? This thing is not in the middle of nowhere, it is following I-5 between LA and SF.
Brute force has absolutely nothing to do with what the server can handle, it just means trying every possibility.
So start your own drug company, with all the other 'no patent protection' types, and find the cure to diseases. Nobody is stopping you.
You're not making any sense. The 'they' you are complaining about being paid are the employees, the suppliers, the landlord, the utility company, etc. 'They' are not taking any risk at all, nor should they be expected to.
However, SOMEONE is paying out all that money. THEY are the ones taking a risk. If they never succeed they don't get paid, they are out their entire investment. However, if they DO eventually succeed, then it is perfectly reasonable to use the profits from that success to cover the costs of past and future failures. The reason they can have those profits is that they don't have to compete on price with all the people who just sit on their asses doing nothing until someone else comes along and invents something that works, and thus have NONE of the expenses associated with development, including the cost of failure.
You are entirely wrong about there being no risk - there is huge risk. However, your 'no patent protection' idea means that there is ONLY risk, and no possible reward. That is not exactly how to 'advance the sciences and useful arts'.
I see, thanks.
Here is my question about the 'cry wolf' thing. In the story, the moral was not that people started ignoring the kid, it is that they ignored him even when there was a real threat. So why doesn't that happen here? Doesn't the cry wolf effect make the predators of the aphids that much more effective? Or is the problem that the predators are also a problem for the crops?
Yes, it is well known that businesses (like farming) use the highest cost option when there are cheaper alternatives available. That is why the farms switched to GMO even though cheaper (or free) seeds are available - because it drives their cost UP. Not too smart, are you?