Seriously? Rounding the change up is EXACTLY the same as rounding the price down. It's a joke on your claim that rounding up is always to the sellers advantage - you know a ludicrous case in which the claim is not true.
And that wasn't what I said was a far batter and just as simple system and I never claimed the a round the price down system would happen. So I'm not sure what it is I'm failing to grasp...
If you round up the change, then obviously you don't round up the price - it's an alternative that no one would ever use hence the smily.
The price comes to $13.32 you pay with a $20 note. Since the 5c is the smallest coin the and the seller owes you $6.68 in change they round up and pay you $6.70.
Is that really that hard to grasp? It's essentially the inverse of the rounding up the price - the price is $13.32 since 5c is the smallest coin you get charged $13.35 and so get $6.65 change from your $20.
The far better and just as simple system is the one I said that even Australian's can grasp (but apparently not you, thats a low bar you missed...)
Never underestimate the ability of the coalition to lose an election.
Labor in NSW kept winning elections even though they were completely inept. Of course Labor did finally lose but they won more than one "unwinnable" election before getting the boot.
Not showing up is also often an indication you don't care about that court.
I predict not a cent of the judgement will ever be collected. Of course I could be wrong, but the US doesn't usually give a toss what some lowly foreign court says.
And that's all fine. It's the claim I'm being screwed because I happen to have a different theshold than you.
Sure I wouldn't pay $60 for a steam game - I wouldn't pay that for a boxed non-DRM game either though.
Yes Steam is a DRM system with the drawbacks of that. One day my steam games might all vanish but their just games and chances are there won't be many of them I'll even care about at the time. Those I do care about I'll get some other way.
I've had this happen the other way around. I have a few games on steam that I bought on steam even though I already owned the boxed game. I'd ruined the media or lost it (maybe permanently, possibly just misplaced and it'll turn up) - spending $5 on steam didn't seem like such a terrible idea.
So yes one day I'm sure my steam games will stop working. But non-DRMed (or at least games without internet connection style DRM) games have vanished on me already so that's not a new thing.
You are probably much more careful than me - I have lived in 10 houses across 6 states and 2 countries in the last 7 years though, I've lost a lot of stuff:)
And unsurprisingly a lot of people are fine with that. They don't have a fundamentalist attitude of "all DRM is evil". As long as it doesn't actually inconveniance them they're fine with it.
It's just a theshold there's no encouragement for even more outrageous limitations. My threshold is somewhere before "can't play when offline", yours might be "has any DRM at all", other people's might be "doesn't come with source code", some people might use "doesn't come with copylefted source code". Your line is magically the universal truth.
Of course he was refering to punts and field goals and the extra point kick. And it's true you could play an entire game of football without any of them happening.
That doesn't change the fact that you *have* to kick the football at the very start of the game (and again at the start of the second half). Throwing the ball at that point is against the rules.
he has been caught, multiple times, fudging data or massaging his equations
No he hasn't. You made that up. Or more likely regurgitated lies because they agree with your world view.
You of course didn't provide any evidence for your made up claim, but anyway: http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf for what I think is the latest of the never ending inquiries.
When I vote in elections using a proportional system I rank individual candidates. If I don't like Bob Smith from party X I can put him last even if I put John Jones from party X first.
NEVER is too strong a word. Government intervention can be beneficial in some cases - though it requires a government being smart enough to make the right choices which is extremely unlikely in a world of billions being spent on lobbying each year.
The Pacific Railroad would be one example of a government subsidy that was most likely a net benefit (of course it's impossible to actually measure since you can't run a control world without it).
And of course there are non-economic factors as well. Sometimes you might want to subsidise a local industry at economic cost in order to have something of strategic importance.
Do you really think AT&T aren't charging what they think is the price that will generate them the maximu prodit already? You think out of the goodness of their hearts AT&T is making less money by charging a lower price?
Obviously AT&T doesn't have perfect knowledge but I'm pretty sure they are trying to charge the amount to maximize profit. That means if they raise prices they'll make less money because less people will use the service (and if they lower prices they'll make less money too).
Hence raising prices to cover the cost would be a stupid decision. Either stupid because it results in less profits, or stupid for not doing it earlier without needing to cover some additional costs.
If they're a monopoly with some sort of cost plus legal requirement on prices then since the government sets those rules hopefully they weren't stupid enough to include such a thing in the cost formula.
Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to pay higher prices for everything.
And your money infusion is likely counter balanced by that retaliatory protectionism resulting in less money flowing into the local encomy via exporting. Not to mention the reduction in money flowing in from exporting refined oil products that the idea does on purpose.
Speculation also lowers prices when speculators think the future price will be lower.
Speculation also puts money into a market when the speculators get it wrong. If speculators really are pushing up the price of oil above what it "should" be then the oil producers (part of the market) are taking money from the speculators by taking them up on their promise to buy.
It sounds nothing like a Martingale strategy. It's simple math.
Say I have $1 million and I'm willing to play a coin toss game with you. Fair coin, no cheating. If a flip comes up heads I pay you $2. if a flip comes up tails you pay me $1. We play until one person has all the money.
How much money do you need to bring in order to have a 80% chance of winning my million? How much in order to have a 90% chance? 95%? 99%?
That's what managing a bankroll is about - even if you have an edge you still have runs of bad luck and you have to be able to survive them without going broke. Well not have to survive - have a low enough risk of ruin to be prepared to go with it.
The entire concept of MAD is that neither side will start it since they'll both end up destroyed. If one side has a missile shield of some sort and hence won't be wiped out then that balance goes away and first strike for them becomes a non-suicidal option.
The response, of course, is to build stuff that overcomes the missiile sheild - and the simplest way to do that is overwhelming it with sheer volume. That of course means you stop with any arms reduction treaties and go back to building more nukes.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? Rounding the change up is EXACTLY the same as rounding the price down. It's a joke on your claim that rounding up is always to the sellers advantage - you know a ludicrous case in which the claim is not true.
And that wasn't what I said was a far batter and just as simple system and I never claimed the a round the price down system would happen. So I'm not sure what it is I'm failing to grasp...
If you round up the change, then obviously you don't round up the price - it's an alternative that no one would ever use hence the smily.
The price comes to $13.32 you pay with a $20 note. Since the 5c is the smallest coin the and the seller owes you $6.68 in change they round up and pay you $6.70.
Is that really that hard to grasp? It's essentially the inverse of the rounding up the price - the price is $13.32 since 5c is the smallest coin you get charged $13.35 and so get $6.65 change from your $20.
The far better and just as simple system is the one I said that even Australian's can grasp (but apparently not you, thats a low bar you missed...)
Not if you round up the change :)
1-2c -> 0c. 3-4c -> 5c
It's the world's simplest algorithm, heck even Australians can manage it in their heads.
Never underestimate the ability of the coalition to lose an election.
Labor in NSW kept winning elections even though they were completely inept. Of course Labor did finally lose but they won more than one "unwinnable" election before getting the boot.
Not showing up is also often an indication you don't care about that court.
I predict not a cent of the judgement will ever be collected. Of course I could be wrong, but the US doesn't usually give a toss what some lowly foreign court says.
And didn't bother having counsel show up.
And lives on the other side of the world to the court's jurisdiction.
Hooray for a meaningless judgement.
I'm pretty sure impressing you isn't high on their list.
And that's all fine. It's the claim I'm being screwed because I happen to have a different theshold than you.
Sure I wouldn't pay $60 for a steam game - I wouldn't pay that for a boxed non-DRM game either though.
Yes Steam is a DRM system with the drawbacks of that. One day my steam games might all vanish but their just games and chances are there won't be many of them I'll even care about at the time. Those I do care about I'll get some other way.
I've had this happen the other way around. I have a few games on steam that I bought on steam even though I already owned the boxed game. I'd ruined the media or lost it (maybe permanently, possibly just misplaced and it'll turn up) - spending $5 on steam didn't seem like such a terrible idea.
So yes one day I'm sure my steam games will stop working. But non-DRMed (or at least games without internet connection style DRM) games have vanished on me already so that's not a new thing.
You are probably much more careful than me - I have lived in 10 houses across 6 states and 2 countries in the last 7 years though, I've lost a lot of stuff :)
Yeah because those street number designed to tell everyone passing by what number the house is on the street are meant to be private.
And unsurprisingly a lot of people are fine with that. They don't have a fundamentalist attitude of "all DRM is evil". As long as it doesn't actually inconveniance them they're fine with it.
It's just a theshold there's no encouragement for even more outrageous limitations. My threshold is somewhere before "can't play when offline", yours might be "has any DRM at all", other people's might be "doesn't come with source code", some people might use "doesn't come with copylefted source code". Your line is magically the universal truth.
Of course he was refering to punts and field goals and the extra point kick. And it's true you could play an entire game of football without any of them happening.
That doesn't change the fact that you *have* to kick the football at the very start of the game (and again at the start of the second half). Throwing the ball at that point is against the rules.
he has been caught, multiple times, fudging data or massaging his equations
No he hasn't. You made that up. Or more likely regurgitated lies because they agree with your world view.
You of course didn't provide any evidence for your made up claim, but anyway: http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf for what I think is the latest of the never ending inquiries.
How does one play a game of Football without that "optional game play" element known as the kickoff?
How so?
When I vote in elections using a proportional system I rank individual candidates. If I don't like Bob Smith from party X I can put him last even if I put John Jones from party X first.
Well at least isn't wasn't a lazy copy-n-paste!
NEVER is too strong a word. Government intervention can be beneficial in some cases - though it requires a government being smart enough to make the right choices which is extremely unlikely in a world of billions being spent on lobbying each year.
The Pacific Railroad would be one example of a government subsidy that was most likely a net benefit (of course it's impossible to actually measure since you can't run a control world without it).
And of course there are non-economic factors as well. Sometimes you might want to subsidise a local industry at economic cost in order to have something of strategic importance.
Do you really think AT&T aren't charging what they think is the price that will generate them the maximu prodit already? You think out of the goodness of their hearts AT&T is making less money by charging a lower price?
Obviously AT&T doesn't have perfect knowledge but I'm pretty sure they are trying to charge the amount to maximize profit. That means if they raise prices they'll make less money because less people will use the service (and if they lower prices they'll make less money too).
Hence raising prices to cover the cost would be a stupid decision. Either stupid because it results in less profits, or stupid for not doing it earlier without needing to cover some additional costs.
If they're a monopoly with some sort of cost plus legal requirement on prices then since the government sets those rules hopefully they weren't stupid enough to include such a thing in the cost formula.
Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to pay higher prices for everything.
And your money infusion is likely counter balanced by that retaliatory protectionism resulting in less money flowing into the local encomy via exporting. Not to mention the reduction in money flowing in from exporting refined oil products that the idea does on purpose.
Or alternatively retaliatory protectionism from other countries push the price up on lots of the other things you buy.
Speculation also lowers prices when speculators think the future price will be lower.
Speculation also puts money into a market when the speculators get it wrong. If speculators really are pushing up the price of oil above what it "should" be then the oil producers (part of the market) are taking money from the speculators by taking them up on their promise to buy.
It sounds nothing like a Martingale strategy. It's simple math.
Say I have $1 million and I'm willing to play a coin toss game with you. Fair coin, no cheating. If a flip comes up heads I pay you $2. if a flip comes up tails you pay me $1. We play until one person has all the money.
How much money do you need to bring in order to have a 80% chance of winning my million? How much in order to have a 90% chance? 95%? 99%?
That's what managing a bankroll is about - even if you have an edge you still have runs of bad luck and you have to be able to survive them without going broke. Well not have to survive - have a low enough risk of ruin to be prepared to go with it.
They has "internet" in the 1930s?
Al Gore wasn't even born, that impossible!
Which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. But lets divert to ranting atheists!
There's a small hitch with that plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_market_opening_times
Why would you expect them not to be annoyed.
The entire concept of MAD is that neither side will start it since they'll both end up destroyed. If one side has a missile shield of some sort and hence won't be wiped out then that balance goes away and first strike for them becomes a non-suicidal option.
The response, of course, is to build stuff that overcomes the missiile sheild - and the simplest way to do that is overwhelming it with sheer volume. That of course means you stop with any arms reduction treaties and go back to building more nukes.