Capitalism is basically just people competing with another. I would love to watch a new movie in my basement for $20 and it could be possible except for the amount of people saying "I don't see a problem with $50". If there enough of those people it gets worse for everyone else.
No one could have seen all older movies worth watching. Even if you have no life and have seen everything on the IMDB top 100 there are still many good movies beyond that.
Yeah I usually go to the one or two a year that my family begs to see. But I would never pay $50 to watch a movie at home without knowing exactly why I have to pay the same for a movie at home that a theater would cost. It just seems like a price point that is meant to take advantage of people who aren't willing to find other options.
They might be around, but any taxi company that is faced with a choice to pay a driver to drive a car or have automation drive the car is going to go to automation and keep the lion's share of the profits. So whether that can still be considered a taxi company is debatable. Most likely what will happen is a company like Google will start a fleet and because they own the technology they will be able to charge a lower price at first to price out traditional companies. Once the traditional companies have transformed to autonomous companies or died, then prices will rise up to take the "call a ride for your convenience" place in the economy and settle into the price point where taxi's were.
Maybe I have a bone to pick because I have been through many pro-capitalist posts on Slashdot where people basically insist that an open market is the fairest way of doing things. But an open market is really only 'fair' as much as people are homogeneous in searching for alternatives when a price is too high. All an open market does (if you can even call the American economy and open market) is get people who want to pay the most what they want.
Well then there is the answer of why they think they can charge $50. Judging by the comments here, that is NOT what most people want. Just another reminder that capitalism basically doesn't get people what they want.
A lot of Slashdotters will tell you that the paradigm didn't really ever exist. That the ones that get a job and work there until retirement (like my dad and a lot of friends' parents did) were just lucky.
Because we are not allowed to buy consumer goods at Indian prices. If this were truly fair, fine, Indian employees are cheaper and lets hire them. But they can be hired for cheaper because cost of living is lower in their country. So if my salary is going down because they are being allowed in freely then I should also expect to be able to go to a grocery store and see India prices. Otherwise I'm basically being priced out of my own economy.
Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.
A person can only be expected to do so much. I can clean the snow off the surface of my vehicle and people are expected to do this. But people are not llidar technicians, nor do they have the time to clean 50 little sensors. You push the snow off your windshield, scrape it, and go.
I've never heard of google intercepting the text I enter into SMS in my android phone, please cite a reference for that because that would be a monster invasion of privacy. SMS may be unencrypted but a person would need some serious equipment to intercept it and my vendor isn't interested in making money off scanning my texts like Google is.
But it has to get out of the driveway to get serviced. Has anyone taken a car fully outfitted with lidar/radar/cameras, left it outside in a blizzard overnight and then tried to get every sensor working in the morning? Say the frost messes up the cameras and the lidar but the radar is still working, can the car limp to a service station like that? Also you can't be paying a service station every time your car doesn't work due to cold.
Obviously you have never had to use a car with two car seats. It's a pain in the ass to install them every time and NO company provides a car with two car seats, a person must own a car with them installed. Plus I see no reason why autonomous car services will cost any different than a taxi does today. Once these fleets roll out and the riders have to pay for autonomy insurance, cost of equipment and maintenance, it will be pretty much the same price as a taxi today.
So look at is this way, the money you pay at the theater is there to cover the costs of the equipment. Why would you pay a similar price if you are using your own equipment instead of theirs? It's kind of like how everyone thought ebooks would be cheaper because of distribution savings, but then they end up costing almost full retail price and Apple is getting sued for price fixing later.
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.
That's exactly correct. Insurance is only affordable because the industry will sue the manufacturer if the cost of covering a particular incident due to a defect is too high. Insurance companies never just "pay for it". In fact if there is a case for it they will recover the cost with a lawsuit, that is as much an important part of the insurance industry as the driving side.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the
Yeah good luck trying to convince Americans to give up personal vehicle ownership. America can't even get them to give up personal firearm ownership.
Capitalism is basically just people competing with another. I would love to watch a new movie in my basement for $20 and it could be possible except for the amount of people saying "I don't see a problem with $50". If there enough of those people it gets worse for everyone else.
That would be a spectacular comparison if we had to wait 150 years for movies to come out on DVD.
No one could have seen all older movies worth watching. Even if you have no life and have seen everything on the IMDB top 100 there are still many good movies beyond that.
This will work until smart TVs are able to scan the number of people in a room. I'll give it a couple years.
Yeah I usually go to the one or two a year that my family begs to see. But I would never pay $50 to watch a movie at home without knowing exactly why I have to pay the same for a movie at home that a theater would cost. It just seems like a price point that is meant to take advantage of people who aren't willing to find other options.
They might be around, but any taxi company that is faced with a choice to pay a driver to drive a car or have automation drive the car is going to go to automation and keep the lion's share of the profits. So whether that can still be considered a taxi company is debatable. Most likely what will happen is a company like Google will start a fleet and because they own the technology they will be able to charge a lower price at first to price out traditional companies. Once the traditional companies have transformed to autonomous companies or died, then prices will rise up to take the "call a ride for your convenience" place in the economy and settle into the price point where taxi's were.
Maybe I have a bone to pick because I have been through many pro-capitalist posts on Slashdot where people basically insist that an open market is the fairest way of doing things. But an open market is really only 'fair' as much as people are homogeneous in searching for alternatives when a price is too high. All an open market does (if you can even call the American economy and open market) is get people who want to pay the most what they want.
Well then there is the answer of why they think they can charge $50. Judging by the comments here, that is NOT what most people want. Just another reminder that capitalism basically doesn't get people what they want.
A lot of Slashdotters will tell you that the paradigm didn't really ever exist. That the ones that get a job and work there until retirement (like my dad and a lot of friends' parents did) were just lucky.
Because we are not allowed to buy consumer goods at Indian prices. If this were truly fair, fine, Indian employees are cheaper and lets hire them. But they can be hired for cheaper because cost of living is lower in their country. So if my salary is going down because they are being allowed in freely then I should also expect to be able to go to a grocery store and see India prices. Otherwise I'm basically being priced out of my own economy.
You're saying there was a DBA in you're environment whose entire job was sending one report, and it was a surprise that his job was easily scripted?
Yeah I'm not really into charging friends to come to my house.
Because the idea that you *have* to watch a brand new movie is pretty ridiculous and it pretty much validates anything the movie companies want to charge.
A person can only be expected to do so much. I can clean the snow off the surface of my vehicle and people are expected to do this. But people are not llidar technicians, nor do they have the time to clean 50 little sensors. You push the snow off your windshield, scrape it, and go.
I've never heard of google intercepting the text I enter into SMS in my android phone, please cite a reference for that because that would be a monster invasion of privacy. SMS may be unencrypted but a person would need some serious equipment to intercept it and my vendor isn't interested in making money off scanning my texts like Google is.
But it has to get out of the driveway to get serviced. Has anyone taken a car fully outfitted with lidar/radar/cameras, left it outside in a blizzard overnight and then tried to get every sensor working in the morning? Say the frost messes up the cameras and the lidar but the radar is still working, can the car limp to a service station like that? Also you can't be paying a service station every time your car doesn't work due to cold.
Ok well have fun paying $50 to watch a flick in your basement then.
Obviously you have never had to use a car with two car seats. It's a pain in the ass to install them every time and NO company provides a car with two car seats, a person must own a car with them installed. Plus I see no reason why autonomous car services will cost any different than a taxi does today. Once these fleets roll out and the riders have to pay for autonomy insurance, cost of equipment and maintenance, it will be pretty much the same price as a taxi today.
The last time I let a homeless person borrow my phone to watch a movie it didn't work out so well...
So look at is this way, the money you pay at the theater is there to cover the costs of the equipment. Why would you pay a similar price if you are using your own equipment instead of theirs? It's kind of like how everyone thought ebooks would be cheaper because of distribution savings, but then they end up costing almost full retail price and Apple is getting sued for price fixing later.
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.
That's exactly correct. Insurance is only affordable because the industry will sue the manufacturer if the cost of covering a particular incident due to a defect is too high. Insurance companies never just "pay for it". In fact if there is a case for it they will recover the cost with a lawsuit, that is as much an important part of the insurance industry as the driving side.
Are you sure it won't me more like "Autopilot was engaged and informed the driv..." ?