Well, that's true, but not the point. Enormous demand equals higher prices which means more sellers entering the market, i.e. high competition. And then prices fall. It's a system, and the chain of events leads to lower prices. But the direct effect of higher demand is higher prices, and it is simple economic illiteracy to claim otherwise.
I knew there would be a lot of people trying to explain why higher demand would equal lower prices, but I also knew there would be people like you, who actually understand economics, who would set them straight.
It's a story about aliens who's drive malfunctions on final approach to earth. They have no choice but to use their last ditch 'uncertainty machine' which catapults them into a mirror universe where they don't crash at Tunguska. They try to pull the old 'increase he native's tech level so they can fix our spacecraft' routine, so they travel around the planet trying to jump start WWI, but things go hilariously awry. Great story.
Damn you, I haven't had my coffee yet. Why must you make me think before I've had my coffee? Oh goody! Mode_Locrian has an excellent response, uhhhh, what he said...
If by different, you mean better for the bands. I think if this kind of distribution channel becomes mainstream, we will see more rather than fewer people buying music this way, and a greater percentage of people paying for it than downloading for free. People want to contribute to bands they like. Right now, this is an unfamiliar method of doing so, so many people may be scared off.
Huh. Is that what passes for security these days? We keep our servers in a darkened cellar with no stairs, in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory marked 'Beware of the Leopard." So far that's kept out everyone but this one English bloke...
I have no idea if you think of yourself as a Christian, but I don't think your theology matches mainstream Christianity. First off, God doesn't care what you've done as long as you accept Christ as your personal savior. Good works won't get you into heaven. Second, God's judgment is absolute in a way mere mortals' never can be. Forgot to ask Christ's forgiveness, even though you've led an exemplary life? You are going to hell FOREVER. Infinite punishment for finite sin is pretty damn absolute.
As for privacy, it is only needed because some people have more power to gather and act on information than others. No one has a right to be able to hide their embarrassment, they have a right not to do embarrassing things. If we could all see what everyone was doing, including what everyone was doing about what everyone else was doing, then no one could abuse the information they gathered, because everyone would know they had abused it. Privacy is a stopgap measure.
How about her picture blog with your baby Polaroids, including the full frontal nudity ones in the backyard Toys-R-Us inflatable swimming pool? Thank God my mom doesn't read slashdot...
Well, it's just that anytime something like this happens, the first excuse is 'the staffer did it, I never said that!" Which is a load of horse shit in most cases. We don't know if that's the case here, which is why I pointed out that fact. But the staffer put in those statements as if the were Ron Paul quotes. Why would he state that if it weren't the case?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: selective enforcement. Blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a much higher rate than whites, for the same rate of crime. So implying that blacks are more criminal because we prosecute and incarcerate them more frequently is inherently racist.
You brought up the drug war issue, that is part of the overall racist picture of law enforcement. Think about the level of damage a single white collar criminal can inflict, stealing millions of dollars, putting whole neighborhoods at risk with criminal pollution and avoidance of regulation, and even leading to wide scale death, as in Bhopal. Yet they are rarely caught, even more rarely prosecuted, yet more rarely incarcerated, and when they are, it is for minimal time.
If you were to compare the level of damage caused by white criminals as opposed to black criminals, the white criminals would be off the charts. Yet blacks are the ones targeted. And we have the highest overall rate of incarceration in the free world. Yep, it's a great country.
If it were true, then of course it would be okay to say so. But what if an equal number of blacks and whites were involved in crime, but blacks were prosecuted ten times as often? Would it then be fair to say that more blacks were prosecuted for crimes? That more were in jail? It would be true to say, but it would be ignoring the inherently racist context of that truth. What if more white men were involved in white collar crimes that damaged millions of lives, and they were rarely prosecuted, but black men were prosecuted every time they jaywalked. Would it still be fair to make the same claim?
You are the moron. The first comment is not about the criminal justice system. I mean, if it is, what is it saying? Why mention that we should assume 95% of black men are criminals? It makes no sense taken in that context.
Next, he says it is okay to be afraid of black men. Do you know what selective enforcement is? Black men are targeted for prosecution at levels well beyond what white men are. That's the real reason there are more black men in prison, not that they commit proportionally more crimes.
As for the Israeli thing, well, I agree that one isn't racist. It's kinda true, actually. But it was listed with the quotes I copied and I included it without thinking about whether it supported the point or not. I still think the first two quotes are enough to show Ron Paul's (perhaps subconscious) racism. And yours.
He claims he never made those statements, I said that from the start. They are in his newsletter attributed to him, which he claims is a mistake made by (as always in these situations) an overzealous staffer. In any case, it's his newsletter and his responsibility.
A racist comment is a statement which supports the idea of racism. I know people like you want to believe there is no racism, everything is completely fair, and everyone should just stop whining, but that's not true, things aren't fair, and we're not going to stop whining until they are.
Have fun being a privileged asshole who never has to worry about injustice in the world. You've certainly got a lot of company but that doesn't mean you're in the right.
I guess you all don't like it when I point out inconvenient facts about your fuck the poor, screw the minorities candidate. Too bad he's never going to be elected, eh?
Surely you're joking. If you can't see how those comments are racist, I can't even have a conversation with you. 95% of black men are criminals? Screw Ron Paul and screw you too, asshole.
Is the reason that blacks are more likely to go to prison because they commit more crimes, or because of selective enforcement? In any case, he said 95% of black males are criminals. Do you believe the data supports that conclusion? And that isn't the only thing he said that was racist.
He claims they aren't written by him. But they appeared in his newsletter, which the man presumably has control over. So, decide for yourself if he's a racist.
Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. A publication endorsed by Ron Paul put forth those opinions. Those are the facts. Spin it any way you like, in my book he's a racist.
Think about it, if we just turned the channel, they'd have no idea why. By publicly complaining about their service, we give them an opportunity to change their business model to one that more people find valuable. That's the way a free market democracy is supposed to work.
It sounds like you want a fascist system where we all have to take what we are given by our corporate masters, and no one has a right to complain about poor service. Tell you what, you go live in a system like that, I'll stay here in America where I still have some shred of rights to free speech.
Love your hypocritical double standard, by the way. We can't complain about corporate radio, but you get to complain about our complaints. Hey, no one is forcing you to read Slashdot, why don't you just leave if you don't like the opinions here?
The analogies about nuclear explosions "raping" the Earth are quite stupid and misinformed. Have you seen her skimpy covering of life? It barely covers her enormous mountain chains! With her moist and fertile farmlands just sitting out there for all to see, her icecaps melting in some obscene striptease, and her delicate ecosystems all exposed, the slut was asking for it.
You lack introspection and project your own negative internal world-view onto others because you can't bear to look honestly at yourself. Basically, everything I've seen you accuse others of doing I have also witnessed you doing yourself.
Stop judging yourself and you'll feel much less need to judge others.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's true, but not the point. Enormous demand equals higher prices which means more sellers entering the market, i.e. high competition. And then prices fall. It's a system, and the chain of events leads to lower prices. But the direct effect of higher demand is higher prices, and it is simple economic illiteracy to claim otherwise.
I knew there would be a lot of people trying to explain why higher demand would equal lower prices, but I also knew there would be people like you, who actually understand economics, who would set them straight.
Me fail economics? That's unpossible!
Lovely. I suppose when you are shopping, and accidentally break something, you make a 'strategic retreat' instead of paying for it?
It's a story about aliens who's drive malfunctions on final approach to earth. They have no choice but to use their last ditch 'uncertainty machine' which catapults them into a mirror universe where they don't crash at Tunguska. They try to pull the old 'increase he native's tech level so they can fix our spacecraft' routine, so they travel around the planet trying to jump start WWI, but things go hilariously awry. Great story.
Damn you, I haven't had my coffee yet. Why must you make me think before I've had my coffee? Oh goody! Mode_Locrian has an excellent response, uhhhh, what he said...
If by different, you mean better for the bands. I think if this kind of distribution channel becomes mainstream, we will see more rather than fewer people buying music this way, and a greater percentage of people paying for it than downloading for free. People want to contribute to bands they like. Right now, this is an unfamiliar method of doing so, so many people may be scared off.
Huh. Is that what passes for security these days? We keep our servers in a darkened cellar with no stairs, in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory marked 'Beware of the Leopard." So far that's kept out everyone but this one English bloke...
I have no idea if you think of yourself as a Christian, but I don't think your theology matches mainstream Christianity. First off, God doesn't care what you've done as long as you accept Christ as your personal savior. Good works won't get you into heaven. Second, God's judgment is absolute in a way mere mortals' never can be. Forgot to ask Christ's forgiveness, even though you've led an exemplary life? You are going to hell FOREVER. Infinite punishment for finite sin is pretty damn absolute.
As for privacy, it is only needed because some people have more power to gather and act on information than others. No one has a right to be able to hide their embarrassment, they have a right not to do embarrassing things. If we could all see what everyone was doing, including what everyone was doing about what everyone else was doing, then no one could abuse the information they gathered, because everyone would know they had abused it. Privacy is a stopgap measure.
Do a little research. Here's a few links to get you started.
http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/reporting/reports.php
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/index.html
I think we've all seen the crater by this point.
Well, okay. Maybe Ron Paul isn't a racist. But damn, trolling his supporters sure is fun.
;-)
I know, I'm a bad, bad man.
Well, it's just that anytime something like this happens, the first excuse is 'the staffer did it, I never said that!" Which is a load of horse shit in most cases. We don't know if that's the case here, which is why I pointed out that fact. But the staffer put in those statements as if the were Ron Paul quotes. Why would he state that if it weren't the case?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: selective enforcement. Blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a much higher rate than whites, for the same rate of crime. So implying that blacks are more criminal because we prosecute and incarcerate them more frequently is inherently racist.
You brought up the drug war issue, that is part of the overall racist picture of law enforcement. Think about the level of damage a single white collar criminal can inflict, stealing millions of dollars, putting whole neighborhoods at risk with criminal pollution and avoidance of regulation, and even leading to wide scale death, as in Bhopal. Yet they are rarely caught, even more rarely prosecuted, yet more rarely incarcerated, and when they are, it is for minimal time.
If you were to compare the level of damage caused by white criminals as opposed to black criminals, the white criminals would be off the charts. Yet blacks are the ones targeted. And we have the highest overall rate of incarceration in the free world. Yep, it's a great country.
If it were true, then of course it would be okay to say so. But what if an equal number of blacks and whites were involved in crime, but blacks were prosecuted ten times as often? Would it then be fair to say that more blacks were prosecuted for crimes? That more were in jail? It would be true to say, but it would be ignoring the inherently racist context of that truth. What if more white men were involved in white collar crimes that damaged millions of lives, and they were rarely prosecuted, but black men were prosecuted every time they jaywalked. Would it still be fair to make the same claim?
You are the moron. The first comment is not about the criminal justice system. I mean, if it is, what is it saying? Why mention that we should assume 95% of black men are criminals? It makes no sense taken in that context.
Next, he says it is okay to be afraid of black men. Do you know what selective enforcement is? Black men are targeted for prosecution at levels well beyond what white men are. That's the real reason there are more black men in prison, not that they commit proportionally more crimes.
As for the Israeli thing, well, I agree that one isn't racist. It's kinda true, actually. But it was listed with the quotes I copied and I included it without thinking about whether it supported the point or not. I still think the first two quotes are enough to show Ron Paul's (perhaps subconscious) racism. And yours.
He claims he never made those statements, I said that from the start. They are in his newsletter attributed to him, which he claims is a mistake made by (as always in these situations) an overzealous staffer. In any case, it's his newsletter and his responsibility.
A racist comment is a statement which supports the idea of racism. I know people like you want to believe there is no racism, everything is completely fair, and everyone should just stop whining, but that's not true, things aren't fair, and we're not going to stop whining until they are.
Have fun being a privileged asshole who never has to worry about injustice in the world. You've certainly got a lot of company but that doesn't mean you're in the right.
I guess you all don't like it when I point out inconvenient facts about your fuck the poor, screw the minorities candidate. Too bad he's never going to be elected, eh?
Surely you're joking. If you can't see how those comments are racist, I can't even have a conversation with you. 95% of black men are criminals? Screw Ron Paul and screw you too, asshole.
Is the reason that blacks are more likely to go to prison because they commit more crimes, or because of selective enforcement? In any case, he said 95% of black males are criminals. Do you believe the data supports that conclusion? And that isn't the only thing he said that was racist.
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. A publication endorsed by Ron Paul put forth those opinions. Those are the facts. Spin it any way you like, in my book he's a racist.
Think about it, if we just turned the channel, they'd have no idea why. By publicly complaining about their service, we give them an opportunity to change their business model to one that more people find valuable. That's the way a free market democracy is supposed to work.
It sounds like you want a fascist system where we all have to take what we are given by our corporate masters, and no one has a right to complain about poor service. Tell you what, you go live in a system like that, I'll stay here in America where I still have some shred of rights to free speech.
Love your hypocritical double standard, by the way. We can't complain about corporate radio, but you get to complain about our complaints. Hey, no one is forcing you to read Slashdot, why don't you just leave if you don't like the opinions here?
You lack introspection and project your own negative internal world-view onto others because you can't bear to look honestly at yourself. Basically, everything I've seen you accuse others of doing I have also witnessed you doing yourself.
Stop judging yourself and you'll feel much less need to judge others.