COGS is not 0. It's $49, plus shipping to customer, plus ebay listing fees, plus ebay selling fees, plus insurance, plus phototagging and insuring each item OR returns for wrong product (which ebay says seller is SOL if they send the correct product and get a different product returned and don't take time to prove what the items are), plus regular returns for actual product defects. Keep in mind that as a seller you also have to compete with the store, and in internet times, other sellers, so you aren't selling for a small discount (say...249 instead of 279) but rather a much larger one (probably in the 100-150 range). The item in question, that rings up for 279 at the store, is going for 139 shipped from amazon right now, so if he is selling for 119, I could easily see the maximum margin in the 15-20 dollar range per item.
This isn't rocket science. The guy is a huge moron.
Like an email list and a a send all message with a click to respond and a pop up reminder x minutes beforehand? Like I had when I used prodigy in 1998?
Normally I'm a fan of Microsoft, but this sounds unreasonable.
- Its a new stadium, not an expansion - over 400M of that is through private financing - the state financing is a loan, not an expenditure (the state will actually make money on it) - it hasn't been approved yet, and could take multiple votes
That is not legally relevant. BB cannot disclaim all warranties, such as non-conforming goods (merchants) or warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, without explicitly disclaiming them. Reserving the right to deny returns or exchanges is too vague to automatically disclaim prior contracts.
If he has a history of buying and returning items I see no problem with them cutting him off from abusing their store.
I see a problem with that, and it is called contract law. BB's written return policy states nothing about cutting people off from the ability to make returns when they return a certain number of items in a specified time period. While it is legal for a company to sell items as non-returnable, it is required that the policy be known at point of sale. The new, personalized return policy can be implemented for future purchases, but if the person purchased other items prior to being added to the no-return list, BB has no standing to refuse to allow returns of those items.
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He wasn't thrown out of university; he is suspended pending an investigation.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech. While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings. If no actual harm was committed, society does not benefit by having someone go to prison.
I grew up with TMNT, such that the game, bomb level and all, making it more difficult than battletoads (having beaten both games, I can claim this with sincerity), is still a better representation than aliens.
It's turtles covered with ooze. Period. Fuck Michael Bay. Should this absurd idea come to fruition (turtle aliens, really?), count this as not even bothering to "pirate," because the idea is offensive.
No state in its marriage laws, requires monogamy in the requirements of maintaining a marriage contract. Nor does any state require consummation for the completion of a marriage contract. Marriage is merely a financial contract.
Stop getting money and sex confused. They are not related.
There is certainly a plot in the NFL. Rivalries between teams, fantasy football leagues for those who don't have favorites, villain/hero quarterbacks, the playoff race...you cannot seriously claim that what compels you to watch a specific game is individual gameplay. You choose to watch a specific game because the outcome matters. This is the definition of story.
I wont make the argument that corporations own the government, because quite frankly, I don't understand what the US government has been doing for the past 6 years or so.
AT&T/T-mobile didn't happen because t-mobile didn't actually want it. T-mobile wanted the multi-billion failure clause, which they were certain they would get, since the merger was known to be illegal by anyone who read it.
Federal and state governments tax tobacco because it is too late to banish tobacco. Pushing cigarrettes to the black market would bankrupt the remaining states who are still solvent.
SOX passed because of enron, tyco, and worldcom. The remaining big corporations were in favor of it, because it quelled public opinion and increased penalties for when fraud is caught, which is still surprisingly rare. The only people who did not like SOX are CEO types who know of fraud in their companies.
Obama shut down the keystone pipeline as a reelection ploy to entice environmentalists. This was a terrible idea that only hurts everyone. Pissing off Canada, increasing fuel costs in the US. China will now buy the oil from Canada, and sell it back to the US, so environmentalists lose too. No one has any idea why this happened. It boggles the mind. (everyone loses this one)
Not quite. Or more accurately, not close. 90% of college educated marriages that end in divorce are initiated by women. The overall rate of women initiating divorce is closer to 70%, which is a huge increase since no fault divorce came into play. Prior to that, it was a 60-40 split. On the other hand, the financial outcome is a 50-50 split only 30% of the time, which makes absolutely no sense when 70% are no fault.
No, I'm pretty certain that if a person tried to take an explosive on a plane, it would be kept really damn quiet. Probably wouldn't even point it out immediately, as creating any kind of panic in a crowded line would create an opportunity for someone else to sneak something through security. I would assume that the explosive carrier would be taken to "extra screening," and then no one would ever hear about the outcome except for security.
Believe it or not, people use explosives outside of airports, also in an illegal fashion. I don't know of any specifically, but there must trials if they get caught as well, and I would wager that you haven't heard about them either.
Its much closer to $50 a dozen. Depending on the exchange rate, somewhere between 48 and 56. ON the other ohand, with all of the taxes in the UK, along with the cost of retail space, it is entirely possible that a buck apiece is reasonable there, with a 4-10% profit margin.
Of course content owners have a right to make money from their content. They do not have an obligation to do so, however. You, crappy musician, as the content creator, are not being prohibited from making money selling your content. Anyone else, without your permission (as the content creator), does not have such an opportunity.
In the same manner, if I purchase retail space, build a kitchen, hire a chef and waitstaff, create a menu, decorate the space, and pass a state-mandated inspection, I have created a restaurant. You, not being the content creator, cannot come into my restaurant and make money selling your crappy music. I, however, can charge you for food. This does not mean that you are required to eat at my restaurant, but I certainly have the right to make money, and also the right to specifically not allow you to eat there.
Logic fail. My morals are not in question here. Starz is a business, which has the stated goal of creating as big a return as they can, because they have shareholders. If it were a non-profit, you might have a complaint.
On the other hand, popularity = value. Its pretty much a basic tenant of economics, increase in demand, without change to any other input, = increase in price. The customer base of netflix is actually a lagging indicator. It measures the number of people who pay for netflix, not the number of people who (specifically) watch Starz content. Netflix gets to promote the ability for users to view starz content, Starz has to figure out not only how many people are going to watch it on netflix instead of elsewhere (redbox, cable, dvd/bluray purchase, thepiratebay) and the monetary risk; but also the benefit to netflix. Starz can then price accordingly, so that Starz gets as much money as possible, without asking for so much that netflix decides to get content elsewhere (or pay their shareholders). The term greed doesn't fit here, because neither company is trying to get more than their fair share.
Starz is also providing NEW content (which, assuming the old content is still available, also = more). The last time I checked, new content that people want to want to watch is particularly expensive to create, even more so now than years ago.
Its a higher price, buts it is not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
COGS is not 0. It's $49, plus shipping to customer, plus ebay listing fees, plus ebay selling fees, plus insurance, plus phototagging and insuring each item OR returns for wrong product (which ebay says seller is SOL if they send the correct product and get a different product returned and don't take time to prove what the items are), plus regular returns for actual product defects. Keep in mind that as a seller you also have to compete with the store, and in internet times, other sellers, so you aren't selling for a small discount (say...249 instead of 279) but rather a much larger one (probably in the 100-150 range). The item in question, that rings up for 279 at the store, is going for 139 shipped from amazon right now, so if he is selling for 119, I could easily see the maximum margin in the 15-20 dollar range per item.
This isn't rocket science. The guy is a huge moron.
You are a strange one. Sports channels are only reason I have cable. Everything else I can find online.
Perhaps you clicked it twice...
Like an email list and a a send all message with a click to respond and a pop up reminder x minutes beforehand? Like I had when I used prodigy in 1998?
Normally I'm a fan of Microsoft, but this sounds unreasonable.
- Its a new stadium, not an expansion
- over 400M of that is through private financing
- the state financing is a loan, not an expenditure (the state will actually make money on it)
- it hasn't been approved yet, and could take multiple votes
Nebraska has about 2 M people. The EU has close to 750M people. Microsoft might notice if 750 M people started getting windows from another country.
If you send 2 people through a detector at the same time, it will by definition set off the machine.
That is not legally relevant. BB cannot disclaim all warranties, such as non-conforming goods (merchants) or warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, without explicitly disclaiming them. Reserving the right to deny returns or exchanges is too vague to automatically disclaim prior contracts.
If he has a history of buying and returning items I see no problem with them cutting him off from abusing their store.
I see a problem with that, and it is called contract law. BB's written return policy states nothing about cutting people off from the ability to make returns when they return a certain number of items in a specified time period. While it is legal for a company to sell items as non-returnable, it is required that the policy be known at point of sale. The new, personalized return policy can be implemented for future purchases, but if the person purchased other items prior to being added to the no-return list, BB has no standing to refuse to allow returns of those items.
No one eats 3.7M on suspected racism. There has to be more to this.Take off the reverse tinfoil hat.
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He wasn't thrown out of university; he is suspended pending an investigation.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech. While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings. If no actual harm was committed, society does not benefit by having someone go to prison.
I grew up with TMNT, such that the game, bomb level and all, making it more difficult than battletoads (having beaten both games, I can claim this with sincerity), is still a better representation than aliens.
It's turtles covered with ooze. Period. Fuck Michael Bay. Should this absurd idea come to fruition (turtle aliens, really?), count this as not even bothering to "pirate," because the idea is offensive.
Pornography refers to material which is obscene, such that it contains little or no artistic merit. It has nothing to do with sex.
Tough rocks. A few shitty teachers made life a living hell for one of my kids so pardon me if I'm not on the worship-the-teacher bandwagon.
Why *shouldn't* they live under the same thumb they so firmly implant on their students?
For the statement you just made.
A teacher's performance is not (only?) related to standardized test scores.
No it isn't.
No state in its marriage laws, requires monogamy in the requirements of maintaining a marriage contract. Nor does any state require consummation for the completion of a marriage contract. Marriage is merely a financial contract.
Stop getting money and sex confused. They are not related.
There is certainly a plot in the NFL. Rivalries between teams, fantasy football leagues for those who don't have favorites, villain/hero quarterbacks, the playoff race...you cannot seriously claim that what compels you to watch a specific game is individual gameplay. You choose to watch a specific game because the outcome matters. This is the definition of story.
I wont make the argument that corporations own the government, because quite frankly, I don't understand what the US government has been doing for the past 6 years or so.
AT&T/T-mobile didn't happen because t-mobile didn't actually want it. T-mobile wanted the multi-billion failure clause, which they were certain they would get, since the merger was known to be illegal by anyone who read it.
Federal and state governments tax tobacco because it is too late to banish tobacco. Pushing cigarrettes to the black market would bankrupt the remaining states who are still solvent.
SOX passed because of enron, tyco, and worldcom. The remaining big corporations were in favor of it, because it quelled public opinion and increased penalties for when fraud is caught, which is still surprisingly rare. The only people who did not like SOX are CEO types who know of fraud in their companies.
Obama shut down the keystone pipeline as a reelection ploy to entice environmentalists. This was a terrible idea that only hurts everyone. Pissing off Canada, increasing fuel costs in the US. China will now buy the oil from Canada, and sell it back to the US, so environmentalists lose too. No one has any idea why this happened. It boggles the mind. (everyone loses this one)
Not quite. Or more accurately, not close. 90% of college educated marriages that end in divorce are initiated by women. The overall rate of women initiating divorce is closer to 70%, which is a huge increase since no fault divorce came into play. Prior to that, it was a 60-40 split. On the other hand, the financial outcome is a 50-50 split only 30% of the time, which makes absolutely no sense when 70% are no fault.
No, I'm pretty certain that if a person tried to take an explosive on a plane, it would be kept really damn quiet. Probably wouldn't even point it out immediately, as creating any kind of panic in a crowded line would create an opportunity for someone else to sneak something through security. I would assume that the explosive carrier would be taken to "extra screening," and then no one would ever hear about the outcome except for security.
Believe it or not, people use explosives outside of airports, also in an illegal fashion. I don't know of any specifically, but there must trials if they get caught as well, and I would wager that you haven't heard about them either.
The definition of irony, however, does.
I don't understand. Region locking is intentional, which you knew when you bought the nook, so nothing ironic here.
Its much closer to $50 a dozen. Depending on the exchange rate, somewhere between 48 and 56. ON the other ohand, with all of the taxes in the UK, along with the cost of retail space, it is entirely possible that a buck apiece is reasonable there, with a 4-10% profit margin.
Try calling them assets instead of property. This should clear up your confusion.
Of course content owners have a right to make money from their content. They do not have an obligation to do so, however. You, crappy musician, as the content creator, are not being prohibited from making money selling your content. Anyone else, without your permission (as the content creator), does not have such an opportunity.
In the same manner, if I purchase retail space, build a kitchen, hire a chef and waitstaff, create a menu, decorate the space, and pass a state-mandated inspection, I have created a restaurant. You, not being the content creator, cannot come into my restaurant and make money selling your crappy music. I, however, can charge you for food. This does not mean that you are required to eat at my restaurant, but I certainly have the right to make money, and also the right to specifically not allow you to eat there.
Logic fail. My morals are not in question here. Starz is a business, which has the stated goal of creating as big a return as they can, because they have shareholders. If it were a non-profit, you might have a complaint.
On the other hand, popularity = value. Its pretty much a basic tenant of economics, increase in demand, without change to any other input, = increase in price. The customer base of netflix is actually a lagging indicator. It measures the number of people who pay for netflix, not the number of people who (specifically) watch Starz content. Netflix gets to promote the ability for users to view starz content, Starz has to figure out not only how many people are going to watch it on netflix instead of elsewhere (redbox, cable, dvd/bluray purchase, thepiratebay) and the monetary risk; but also the benefit to netflix. Starz can then price accordingly, so that Starz gets as much money as possible, without asking for so much that netflix decides to get content elsewhere (or pay their shareholders). The term greed doesn't fit here, because neither company is trying to get more than their fair share.
Starz is also providing NEW content (which, assuming the old content is still available, also = more). The last time I checked, new content that people want to want to watch is particularly expensive to create, even more so now than years ago.
Its a higher price, buts it is not the same thing.