STTNG is priced at $125 a season because there are people who want it that are willing to pay that much for it. That they might sell more copies by lowering their price is immaterial to this point Even though they would sell more, they would not make as much money on each individual sale, and by having to make more sales to make as much revenue, a larger amount of that revenue gets spent on manufacturing and marketing the product (including salaries).
I'm not saying I think $125 a season is fair... I'm just saying that they charge that much because they can... if people (with money to burn, evidently) didn't actually buy it at that price, it wouldn't stay that high.
Full stop. Right there. You don't need any further qualifiers.
The notion that the prices are aburdly high is a naive perception that corporations which make entertainment somehow have an obligation to provide the general population with as low a price as is reasonable while still making a profit. When in actuality, like anything else, it is priced as absolutely high as possible that the target demographic is demonstrably willing to pay. And of course, there's the fact that people who do think the costs of movies is too high are not really in their target demographic in the first place, since there are plenty of people who still gladly pay that kind of money for the theater experience, and the corporations are only too happy to separate these people from their money.
Nope... entirely comparable to the matter that I was actually discussing.
The above comment to which I replied before talked about forgetting your RFID bracelet, suggesting that could be a problematic disadvantage. I pointed out that this would be much like forgetting ammo. The counter-argument raised to this point was that forgetting ammo is a user error. My entire point being that forgetting the RFID bracelet is just as much of a user-error as forgetting ammo. I was not making a comment on whether or not there may or may not be other distinctions which make one less advantageous than the other.
I was addressing the poster's comment specifically, not making a general argument for them one way or another. I was staying on topic with respect to the comment I posted a reply to. Bringing other factors into it which may very well have merit but were not actually addressed by the poster to whom I responded is at best off-topic, and at worst an argument that moves the goalposts.
I'm kinda curious here.... how do you jam an RFID device from a distance where the reader and the RFID itself are being carried by the same person? RFID jamming technology prevents RFID's from being read at a distance, but if the reader is much closer to the RFID tag than the jammer, jamming efforts aren't likely going to be effective.
Of course, the RFID bracelet wouldn't really stop you from being shot with your own gun by somebody else who was standing less than about 5 meters from you. I'm not sure if using RFID's is a good way to go anyways, even though I generally like the idea of smart guns.
Of course... but it's pretty hard to disagree with the premise that a person is more dangerous with a weapon than without, and to an admittedly lesser extent, is likewise more dangerous with what may be considered a more deadly weapon than what may be considered a less less deadly one.
They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less?
Because they had less expenses. That doesn't necessarily mean they made the idea any less costly than it already was, unless one considers the idea of waiting for somebody else to invent something, then taking the idea and selling it themselves without having to waste the R&D time on it an acceptable means of lowering associated costs with product development.
Second, I don't buy that it'll take a year to replace such components.
Whether you "buy" it or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the notion.
My take is that a competent, large machine shop can crank out a replacement inside of about a week
*A* replacement part. Singular. Scale that. Where a power station has to replace over half of its components, not just one or two. Further, practically every major power station in the entire world would be affected by the event... and these machine shops generally would each service more than one power station, since it is not normally the case that multiple stations need replacement at the same time, and the cost of keeping spares around for parts that fail so infrequently is prohibitive.
Plus, of course, most of the machine shops worldwide would themselves generally not have any power either... so they aren't likely to get the first components out in just a week, like you project. Yeah, a year is perhaps a very realistic estimate on when most people could expect their power to return at reliable levels.... for some people I'd think it could be as long as two.
For some people, especially in very urban areas, it may be as little as just a few weeks to a couple of months, but I don't think for a moment that a year is an exaggeration. If anything, it's certain to be an underestimate for some.
.
Third, power lines aren't working under anything resembling perfect conditions. A lot of bad things happen to them already, including strong solar storms
The difference being, however, that you were prepared to be camping when you did... the lack of electricity did not arrive upon you without expectation, and you had specifically equipped yourself to get by without electricity for the period you expected to be camping.
When something unplanned arises, and you have no idea how long it will be before the electricity returns, the situation is another kettle of fish entirely.
... only maintained by whatever levels of disinterest in one's affairs people around them might have. Because people are generally concerned with their own affairs more than other people's, it can often be fairly easy to hold onto privacy, ironically, in a public place. Although there's nothing in such public places to necessarily keep arbitrary people from seeing or hearing whatever it is you might want to keep private, as long as you aren't doing anything which would actually attract outsidee attention, it's unlikely that anybody around you will be paying enough attention to notice, and you can achieve privacy through apathy.
Even if you start with the assumption that what we call the Bible today is the divinely inspired word of God, where on earth does that disprove global warming?
Math is easy in approximately the same sense that drawing well is easy, or playing a musical instrument is easy. It is a learned skill that can improve with practice... some people appear to take to it more naturally than others, but given the time and willingness to put the necessary effort in, anyone can do them.
While intending to break the law without actually breaking it may be legal, the lack of any intention to break the law does not typically excuse one from actually breaking it.
Perhaps he figures, like a lot of people, that if human beings stay on this rock for too long, the probability of annihilation approaches certainty. While this may technically be true, given the disbursement of the human race around the globe, the way that so-called "extinction level events" have changed the environment of the earth since life as we know it started evolving, and the fact that human beings use their intellect to adapt to different environments many orders of magnitude faster than evolution can equip creatures to handle them physiologically, it statistically doesn't really approach any appreciable danger levels to the existence of the human race for periods on the order of 10's of millions of years, and doesn't genuinely approach certainty anytime sooner than around 2 billion.
Will they increase the fine, as they say, with the actual number of infractions? Or do they really mean they'll increase it with the number of allegations?
you have the opportunity to fix it, but the source code is such a pain in the ass to get around that nobody does it.
That's called laziness. But who's more lazy? The developer, who didn't warrant his software in the first place, or the people who have the opportunity to fix it, but instead choose to complain about it?
Why can't they make a waterslide that doesn't scrape your back all to hell as you pass over the seams between adjacent pieces of slide?
In my lifetime, I can count on one hand, nay, one finger the number of waterparks that I've been to where I didn't leave the park with my back, and especially my shoulder-blades, quite badly irritated.
And each of those things took time for the technology to develop before they became possible.
My only point is that with the technology that we have today, we couldn't hope to detect anything extraterrestrial because even if something were operating at a higher type level, we wouldn't know what to be looking for, and would miss it even if we were looking right at it.
Even assuming continual technological advance, we simply won't have the ability to find intelligent life much beyond our own solar system for at least another couple of centuries unless they came to us.
Slashdot Mirror
STTNG is priced at $125 a season because there are people who want it that are willing to pay that much for it. That they might sell more copies by lowering their price is immaterial to this point Even though they would sell more, they would not make as much money on each individual sale, and by having to make more sales to make as much revenue, a larger amount of that revenue gets spent on manufacturing and marketing the product (including salaries).
I'm not saying I think $125 a season is fair... I'm just saying that they charge that much because they can... if people (with money to burn, evidently) didn't actually buy it at that price, it wouldn't stay that high.
Full stop. Right there. You don't need any further qualifiers.
The notion that the prices are aburdly high is a naive perception that corporations which make entertainment somehow have an obligation to provide the general population with as low a price as is reasonable while still making a profit. When in actuality, like anything else, it is priced as absolutely high as possible that the target demographic is demonstrably willing to pay. And of course, there's the fact that people who do think the costs of movies is too high are not really in their target demographic in the first place, since there are plenty of people who still gladly pay that kind of money for the theater experience, and the corporations are only too happy to separate these people from their money.
Nope... entirely comparable to the matter that I was actually discussing.
The above comment to which I replied before talked about forgetting your RFID bracelet, suggesting that could be a problematic disadvantage. I pointed out that this would be much like forgetting ammo. The counter-argument raised to this point was that forgetting ammo is a user error. My entire point being that forgetting the RFID bracelet is just as much of a user-error as forgetting ammo. I was not making a comment on whether or not there may or may not be other distinctions which make one less advantageous than the other.
I was addressing the poster's comment specifically, not making a general argument for them one way or another. I was staying on topic with respect to the comment I posted a reply to. Bringing other factors into it which may very well have merit but were not actually addressed by the poster to whom I responded is at best off-topic, and at worst an argument that moves the goalposts.
So is forgetting your RFID bracelet.... I'm not dismissing your other points, but just comparing apples to apples here. I
I'm kinda curious here.... how do you jam an RFID device from a distance where the reader and the RFID itself are being carried by the same person? RFID jamming technology prevents RFID's from being read at a distance, but if the reader is much closer to the RFID tag than the jammer, jamming efforts aren't likely going to be effective.
Of course, the RFID bracelet wouldn't really stop you from being shot with your own gun by somebody else who was standing less than about 5 meters from you. I'm not sure if using RFID's is a good way to go anyways, even though I generally like the idea of smart guns.
So about the same as "oh, I forgot to bring ammunition"?
Of course... but it's pretty hard to disagree with the premise that a person is more dangerous with a weapon than without, and to an admittedly lesser extent, is likewise more dangerous with what may be considered a more deadly weapon than what may be considered a less less deadly one.
Wasn't that a movie with Johnny Depp about cocaine smuggling or something?
I mean, I suppose to could have been based on a book by the same name, but I have no idea what that has to with Javascript.
Because they had less expenses. That doesn't necessarily mean they made the idea any less costly than it already was, unless one considers the idea of waiting for somebody else to invent something, then taking the idea and selling it themselves without having to waste the R&D time on it an acceptable means of lowering associated costs with product development.
Whether you "buy" it or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the notion.
*A* replacement part. Singular. Scale that. Where a power station has to replace over half of its components, not just one or two. Further, practically every major power station in the entire world would be affected by the event... and these machine shops generally would each service more than one power station, since it is not normally the case that multiple stations need replacement at the same time, and the cost of keeping spares around for parts that fail so infrequently is prohibitive.
Plus, of course, most of the machine shops worldwide would themselves generally not have any power either... so they aren't likely to get the first components out in just a week, like you project. Yeah, a year is perhaps a very realistic estimate on when most people could expect their power to return at reliable levels.... for some people I'd think it could be as long as two.
For some people, especially in very urban areas, it may be as little as just a few weeks to a couple of months, but I don't think for a moment that a year is an exaggeration. If anything, it's certain to be an underestimate for some.
Nothing of the scale of the event in 1859.
The difference being, however, that you were prepared to be camping when you did... the lack of electricity did not arrive upon you without expectation, and you had specifically equipped yourself to get by without electricity for the period you expected to be camping.
When something unplanned arises, and you have no idea how long it will be before the electricity returns, the situation is another kettle of fish entirely.
... only maintained by whatever levels of disinterest in one's affairs people around them might have. Because people are generally concerned with their own affairs more than other people's, it can often be fairly easy to hold onto privacy, ironically, in a public place. Although there's nothing in such public places to necessarily keep arbitrary people from seeing or hearing whatever it is you might want to keep private, as long as you aren't doing anything which would actually attract outsidee attention, it's unlikely that anybody around you will be paying enough attention to notice, and you can achieve privacy through apathy.
Even if you start with the assumption that what we call the Bible today is the divinely inspired word of God, where on earth does that disprove global warming?
Math is easy in approximately the same sense that drawing well is easy, or playing a musical instrument is easy. It is a learned skill that can improve with practice... some people appear to take to it more naturally than others, but given the time and willingness to put the necessary effort in, anyone can do them.
While intending to break the law without actually breaking it may be legal, the lack of any intention to break the law does not typically excuse one from actually breaking it.
Perhaps he figures, like a lot of people, that if human beings stay on this rock for too long, the probability of annihilation approaches certainty. While this may technically be true, given the disbursement of the human race around the globe, the way that so-called "extinction level events" have changed the environment of the earth since life as we know it started evolving, and the fact that human beings use their intellect to adapt to different environments many orders of magnitude faster than evolution can equip creatures to handle them physiologically, it statistically doesn't really approach any appreciable danger levels to the existence of the human race for periods on the order of 10's of millions of years, and doesn't genuinely approach certainty anytime sooner than around 2 billion.
Yeah, because, you know... money is just going to be so useful on Mars,
What.'s illegal in OK? Old people having sex?
Somehow I don't think that's enforced, if accurate.
Thanks for the chuckle though.
Will they increase the fine, as they say, with the actual number of infractions? Or do they really mean they'll increase it with the number of allegations?
Old pople have sex too, you know.
That's called laziness. But who's more lazy? The developer, who didn't warrant his software in the first place, or the people who have the opportunity to fix it, but instead choose to complain about it?
But at least the option to fix it yourself actually exists.
In my lifetime, I can count on one hand, nay, one finger the number of waterparks that I've been to where I didn't leave the park with my back, and especially my shoulder-blades, quite badly irritated.
I had to manually scrape the html to find a link to the actual video.
They claim to support IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, but somehow I think what they really mean is that they only support Mac and Windows.
And each of those things took time for the technology to develop before they became possible.
My only point is that with the technology that we have today, we couldn't hope to detect anything extraterrestrial because even if something were operating at a higher type level, we wouldn't know what to be looking for, and would miss it even if we were looking right at it.
Even assuming continual technological advance, we simply won't have the ability to find intelligent life much beyond our own solar system for at least another couple of centuries unless they came to us.