Or pick a far more likely example: a patent troll thinks your mobile app infringes on their patent and sues. The RIAA/MPAA decides that your app is helping people pirate stuff and they sue you.
I don't think that piracy of console hardware is that big a problem. And simultaneous release isn't going to change it much anyway. Simultaneous release would however significantly increase initial production costs and inventory requirements.
I remember some people getting upset and protesting about Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" movie. I don't remember any of them attacking embassies with guns and rockets.
I remember Piss Christ driving christians nuts and people protesting and vandalizing the image and making death threats. I don't remember any of them carrying out said death threats though let alone attacking a US embassy (the artist was American and got a government grant from the US).
Which clearly overlaps with amazon/ebay and hence is irrelevant. That ebay sells houses and land would be relevant since that would push up the "total transaction value" with a small number of transactions and is something alibaba likely doesn't do.
They mention the B2C site in the brief article, I would hope they are only counting it when doing the comparison. Since I'm pretty sure neither amazon or ebay sells anything like rice with a 1000 ton minimum order, crude oil with a 2 million barrel minimum order, or iron ore with a 150000 ton minimum.
Sure you could, but that wasn't the situation presented.
You might think they could go either way in the short term. You might think they are going to go up in the short term. You might think they'll stay exactly the same price in the short term. All of those meet the case of "You think the stocks are going up, long term". And in all of those loaning your stock to someone who wants to short can be benefial to you.
Even if you think the price will go down in the short term, you might think that even though there's a 95% chance it will go down a little there's a 5% chance it'll spike up a lot - in which case you don't want to try market timing and will just stay long.
Not necessarily. Just because someone shorts a stock doesn't guarantee the price will go down. The shorter can be wrong after all and the stock can go up the whole time.
You are also ignoring that the shorter has to buy the stock back at some point in the future. And thus using your 100% certainty of stock price changes resulting from shorting the price will go up at that point. So while they increase the supply at a given price at one point they equally increase demand at a given price point in the future so it balances out.
And where do you get "not presenting the whole story" from? If I want to borrow some stock to short then obviously I think the stock is overvalued and will be going down in price in the future. By borrowing it I am telling you that so the whole story is getting presented. If you think I am better at judging future performance than you then you can take that advice and sell. How is that fraud?
Of course not presenting the whole story isn't fraud anyway. If I see a thrift store selling something at what I believe is below the market value I am allowed to buy it from them without telling them what my valuation of the item is - that is not fraud.
Do you also think I am committing fraud if I decide to sell the stocks of some company that I own because I think the price in the future is going to be lower? I am after all going to cause exactly the same effect on the market as someone shorting.
The topic is content creation for a classroom not "in general". See the subject of your comment? Creating videos isn't what that is usually about.
And sure there might be people using voice recognition and bluetooth keyboard with tablets, but apparently a whole set of users (the article is about them) seem to be having trouble with it.
Why would that be hard to explain? Seasons first then episodes. 3.5 is larger than 3. Though of course BSG didn't have a season 3.5 since that season wasn't split.
But seriously your parents have trouble putting the following in numeric order: 1, 2.0, 2.5, 3, 4.0, 4.5?
That's not necessarily true, the "correction" could be worse than the problem. The gain here is shaving a few microseconds off the time to make a trade - not something that is worth correcting.
When you had two people in different cities wanting to trade something a trader who would act as the middle man made a lot of sense. As those two people got closer together it made less sense, but pairing up such trades is still very beneficial. What you have now though, is two people about to shake hands on a trade, but just before their hands connect a third party jumps in the middle and does a trade with each. Since the trade was already about to happen in a fraction of a second there's no benefit gained from that middleman.
There's nothing strange or wrong about trading something you don't own. Every time someone buys something with a credit card they are trading something they don't own.
Essentially everything useful can led to manipulations. Part of the reason for having stock markets is for price discovery, which is nothing but manipulation of prices.
And it clearly isn't fraud, though you provided nothing to explain how it is anyway (that people lose money doesn't make something fraud). Anyway the lose money part is wrong too, stockholders gain from short selling every time. The guy shorting has to borrow the stock from a stockholder, and thus pays the stockholder interest which is clearly a gain for stockholders.
Publishers don't have to shrink their margins. They can charge amazon whatever they like for each copy that Amazon wants to sell.
Sure if amazon prices other retail businesses out of existence that will likely allow amazon to raise prices, but that's a different matter to price fixing.
I can see where you are coming from. But pointing out the lack of authority of an appeal to authority isn't ad hominem.
I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he has brown eyes". I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he said this other stupid thing". I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he was a bad person". Those would be ad hominem.
I pointed out something relevant to the argument at hand. Firstly that the authority doesn't seem that authoritative for his time, and secondly that things have dramatically changed since them in terms of the farm productivity and so on. I gave my reasons for disputing his assessment of the situation, I didn't just declare them invalid because of unrelated beliefs, actions, or characteristics of the person. That is not ad hominem.
I didn't turn my brain off. I disagree with the argument.
I actually agree that you can and should do both. I just don't think the reason is that abject poverty is inevitable and think that declaring it to be is a lazy argument.
But of course instead of refuting my arguments you can just declare me an anti religious nutter. There's a term for that, I just can't quite remember it. Ad-hom..., Ad-homin...
Why would a third hand quote from some tradesman from 2000 years ago matter in the slightest? You don't think some technological and scientific advances in the meantime might have changed the game a little? That advances in philopsophy and economic theory and ethics might make a difference?
Now they mightn't have of course, but surely you can find a quote from someone a little more recent with at least some credentials (or better still published studies) to back up their claims?
Sure if you are refering to relatively poor - but then the statement is meaningless anyway.
Except he didn't want to add a cited claim he just wanted to remove a reference to some critic deciding that the book was inspired by something it wasn't.
Of course that's a bad idea anyway, since it's just going to get added back in future since there it was a claim with an easy cite to a new york times article that's on the nyt web pages, And the wikipedia page was stating the inspiration as a fact, it was stating that someone (who wasn't the author) had stated they thought it was - which is completely true.
No, it's just less likely than other options and hence further down the list of things to check for that if it was common. And of course less chance of the lucky "I've seen this before" light bulb from a doctor.
It's written either by the people at the time writing down what they thought/believed or by God explaining things in terms they could comprehend. Either way taking it literally is stupid since it isn't literally true.
And I certainly haven't seen clouds above the stars - the firmament is clearly specified as separating the water from above and below. And it also contains the stars so clouds can't be the water above
Because the price of something has little to do with the cost to make it. Other than providing a floor on the price in the long term for producers who want to stay in business and aren't loss leading something else.
For an interchangeable commodity with no barriers to market entry, sure the price will approach the cost of production (plus profit required to make whatever capital investment/risks worthwhile). But book are not such a product.
Slashdot Mirror
Or pick a far more likely example: a patent troll thinks your mobile app infringes on their patent and sues. The RIAA/MPAA decides that your app is helping people pirate stuff and they sue you.
I don't think that piracy of console hardware is that big a problem. And simultaneous release isn't going to change it much anyway. Simultaneous release would however significantly increase initial production costs and inventory requirements.
Really?
I remember some people getting upset and protesting about Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" movie. I don't remember any of them attacking embassies with guns and rockets.
I remember Piss Christ driving christians nuts and people protesting and vandalizing the image and making death threats. I don't remember any of them carrying out said death threats though let alone attacking a US embassy (the artist was American and got a government grant from the US).
Which ones death in an attack on an embassy should I put first?
Which clearly overlaps with amazon/ebay and hence is irrelevant. That ebay sells houses and land would be relevant since that would push up the "total transaction value" with a small number of transactions and is something alibaba likely doesn't do.
They mention the B2C site in the brief article, I would hope they are only counting it when doing the comparison. Since I'm pretty sure neither amazon or ebay sells anything like rice with a 1000 ton minimum order, crude oil with a 2 million barrel minimum order, or iron ore with a 150000 ton minimum.
Sure you could, but that wasn't the situation presented.
You might think they could go either way in the short term. You might think they are going to go up in the short term. You might think they'll stay exactly the same price in the short term. All of those meet the case of "You think the stocks are going up, long term". And in all of those loaning your stock to someone who wants to short can be benefial to you.
Even if you think the price will go down in the short term, you might think that even though there's a 95% chance it will go down a little there's a 5% chance it'll spike up a lot - in which case you don't want to try market timing and will just stay long.
Not necessarily. Just because someone shorts a stock doesn't guarantee the price will go down. The shorter can be wrong after all and the stock can go up the whole time.
You are also ignoring that the shorter has to buy the stock back at some point in the future. And thus using your 100% certainty of stock price changes resulting from shorting the price will go up at that point. So while they increase the supply at a given price at one point they equally increase demand at a given price point in the future so it balances out.
And where do you get "not presenting the whole story" from? If I want to borrow some stock to short then obviously I think the stock is overvalued and will be going down in price in the future. By borrowing it I am telling you that so the whole story is getting presented. If you think I am better at judging future performance than you then you can take that advice and sell. How is that fraud?
Of course not presenting the whole story isn't fraud anyway. If I see a thrift store selling something at what I believe is below the market value I am allowed to buy it from them without telling them what my valuation of the item is - that is not fraud.
Do you also think I am committing fraud if I decide to sell the stocks of some company that I own because I think the price in the future is going to be lower? I am after all going to cause exactly the same effect on the market as someone shorting.
The topic is content creation for a classroom not "in general". See the subject of your comment? Creating videos isn't what that is usually about.
And sure there might be people using voice recognition and bluetooth keyboard with tablets, but apparently a whole set of users (the article is about them) seem to be having trouble with it.
Why would that be hard to explain? Seasons first then episodes. 3.5 is larger than 3. Though of course BSG didn't have a season 3.5 since that season wasn't split.
But seriously your parents have trouble putting the following in numeric order: 1, 2.0, 2.5, 3, 4.0, 4.5?
But a limit sell doesn't cost anything while a put does, and people don't like paying for insurance.
That's not necessarily true, the "correction" could be worse than the problem. The gain here is shaving a few microseconds off the time to make a trade - not something that is worth correcting.
When you had two people in different cities wanting to trade something a trader who would act as the middle man made a lot of sense. As those two people got closer together it made less sense, but pairing up such trades is still very beneficial. What you have now though, is two people about to shake hands on a trade, but just before their hands connect a third party jumps in the middle and does a trade with each. Since the trade was already about to happen in a fraction of a second there's no benefit gained from that middleman.
There's nothing strange or wrong about trading something you don't own. Every time someone buys something with a credit card they are trading something they don't own.
Essentially everything useful can led to manipulations. Part of the reason for having stock markets is for price discovery, which is nothing but manipulation of prices.
And it clearly isn't fraud, though you provided nothing to explain how it is anyway (that people lose money doesn't make something fraud). Anyway the lose money part is wrong too, stockholders gain from short selling every time. The guy shorting has to borrow the stock from a stockholder, and thus pays the stockholder interest which is clearly a gain for stockholders.
Publishers don't have to shrink their margins. They can charge amazon whatever they like for each copy that Amazon wants to sell.
Sure if amazon prices other retail businesses out of existence that will likely allow amazon to raise prices, but that's a different matter to price fixing.
I can see where you are coming from. But pointing out the lack of authority of an appeal to authority isn't ad hominem.
I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he has brown eyes". I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he said this other stupid thing". I didn't say "We can ignore what Jesus said because he was a bad person". Those would be ad hominem.
I pointed out something relevant to the argument at hand. Firstly that the authority doesn't seem that authoritative for his time, and secondly that things have dramatically changed since them in terms of the farm productivity and so on. I gave my reasons for disputing his assessment of the situation, I didn't just declare them invalid because of unrelated beliefs, actions, or characteristics of the person. That is not ad hominem.
That's not attacking the speaker. That's attacking the appeal to authority that is the argument (by disputing that the authority it relevant).
I didn't turn my brain off. I disagree with the argument.
I actually agree that you can and should do both. I just don't think the reason is that abject poverty is inevitable and think that declaring it to be is a lazy argument.
But of course instead of refuting my arguments you can just declare me an anti religious nutter. There's a term for that, I just can't quite remember it. Ad-hom..., Ad-homin...
Please point out where I claimed the argument was invalid by attacking the speaker?
Why would a third hand quote from some tradesman from 2000 years ago matter in the slightest? You don't think some technological and scientific advances in the meantime might have changed the game a little? That advances in philopsophy and economic theory and ethics might make a difference?
Now they mightn't have of course, but surely you can find a quote from someone a little more recent with at least some credentials (or better still published studies) to back up their claims?
Sure if you are refering to relatively poor - but then the statement is meaningless anyway.
If they are throw away clothes why are you washing and rinsing them? Let alone repeating?
Except he didn't want to add a cited claim he just wanted to remove a reference to some critic deciding that the book was inspired by something it wasn't.
Of course that's a bad idea anyway, since it's just going to get added back in future since there it was a claim with an easy cite to a new york times article that's on the nyt web pages, And the wikipedia page was stating the inspiration as a fact, it was stating that someone (who wasn't the author) had stated they thought it was - which is completely true.
No, it's just less likely than other options and hence further down the list of things to check for that if it was common. And of course less chance of the lucky "I've seen this before" light bulb from a doctor.
It's not the translators using the same word. It's the original text http://concordances.org/hebrew/7549.htm and http://concordances.org/hebrew/8064.htm for firmament and heavens. And the word doesn't mean sky or open space in the first place it means
It's written either by the people at the time writing down what they thought/believed or by God explaining things in terms they could comprehend. Either way taking it literally is stupid since it isn't literally true.
And I certainly haven't seen clouds above the stars - the firmament is clearly specified as separating the water from above and below. And it also contains the stars so clouds can't be the water above
Since you must have read the paper to come to those conclusions, which survey questions in particular do you take issue with?
Because the price of something has little to do with the cost to make it. Other than providing a floor on the price in the long term for producers who want to stay in business and aren't loss leading something else.
For an interchangeable commodity with no barriers to market entry, sure the price will approach the cost of production (plus profit required to make whatever capital investment/risks worthwhile). But book are not such a product.