Who owns those shares? Penson plans, 401(ks), Endowments, IRAs, etc. It's not all just Scrooge McDuck.
I swear, the level of knowledge of some Slashdotters when it comes to dealings in the financial markets is laughable. Stick to flogging Linux.
What would the point be to buy shares, vote and then sell them? Why would someone do that? Your understanding of financial markets is weak, to say the least.
Yes, because everyone assumes that Wal-Mart is a charity, right? Clearly, this is a way to generate interest in order to get people to come into their stores. Just like American Idol is about generating interest in a musician to get people to buy their music.
Oh, the horror!
In looking over the terms of the contest, they are offering what they say they are offering: the chance to SELL your product on Wal-Mart's shelves, which is essentially access to one of the largest retail distribution systems in the world. They are not offering to manufacture your product, they are not offering to market your product, they are offering to put in on their shelves. That's what you're winning... which is precisely what they said the contest is about.
If you went ahead and read the rules of the contest, you'd see that. But because it's Wal-Mart, let's all just bury our heads in the sand and assume the worst, right?
I think the angst comes when people suggest that "public funding" is the same as "free", they're forgetting that someone is actually paying for this - the taxpayer - who, in this transaction, is someone who doesn't have a choice whether they want to pay for it because they'll be thrown in jail for not paying taxes.
That's what I don't understand - why don't more businesses use charging stations as a means of attracting customers? Maybe you would have some logistical issues if the customer wanted to walk around the store or shop while their phone is charging (i.e., making sure that the phone was safe from theft), but don't you have a captive audience while they're waiting for it to charge? I was at a local Verizon kiosk in one of the big train stations in Chicago, and while I was talking to one of the sales reps, 3-4 people who worked nearby dropped off their phones to be charged. It's a very helpful service, one that I'm sure many people would find valuable.
'Open, distributed projects have the potential to outperform the traditional closed, controlled research model by reducing costs and duplication of effort, making it easy to collect and analyze masses of data from diverse sources, and allowing the best brains to participate no matter where they live".... I guess I'm a little unclear on how you're supposed to make boatloads of money through that approach...
As someone who reads through six or seven different business sections a day, the writing quality of the WSJ and the NYT is much better than that of Bloomberg, for example, or The Financial Times. It's also better than Reuters or AP. If you read them all regularly, you'll pick up quickly which ones are better.
I have to agree - would the net neutrality issue go away if people were simply charged based on how much bandwidth they use -- kind of like what happens in the mobile internet already? If people want unlimited internet, they can pay for it. If they don't, why should they have to subsidize the network infrastructure expenses needed to continuously stream NetFlix to their neighbor's house when all they do is read email and Slashdot?
One could argue that they make more sales because they give consumers a greater opportunity to evade taxes, thereby making their products seem more attractively priced to the tax evader.
"... fraudulent governments which are owned and operated by multinational corporations... "
Don't be so eager to wave the white flag. You have more power than you imagine.
I remember reading a history of the Commodore 64 a few years ago where one of the early pioneers of that system mentioned that Bill Gates (at least back then) was actually a decent guy and Steve Jobs was always a "hustler"...
"You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down and you see a tortoise, Leon, it's crawling towards you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help, but you're not helping. Why is that Leon?"
Slashdot Mirror
No, economics is about resource allocation. Politics is about compelling others to serve your interests.
Who owns those shares? Penson plans, 401(ks), Endowments, IRAs, etc. It's not all just Scrooge McDuck. I swear, the level of knowledge of some Slashdotters when it comes to dealings in the financial markets is laughable. Stick to flogging Linux.
What would the point be to buy shares, vote and then sell them? Why would someone do that? Your understanding of financial markets is weak, to say the least.
Yes, because everyone assumes that Wal-Mart is a charity, right? Clearly, this is a way to generate interest in order to get people to come into their stores. Just like American Idol is about generating interest in a musician to get people to buy their music. Oh, the horror!
In looking over the terms of the contest, they are offering what they say they are offering: the chance to SELL your product on Wal-Mart's shelves, which is essentially access to one of the largest retail distribution systems in the world. They are not offering to manufacture your product, they are not offering to market your product, they are offering to put in on their shelves. That's what you're winning ... which is precisely what they said the contest is about.
If you went ahead and read the rules of the contest, you'd see that. But because it's Wal-Mart, let's all just bury our heads in the sand and assume the worst, right?
I think the angst comes when people suggest that "public funding" is the same as "free", they're forgetting that someone is actually paying for this - the taxpayer - who, in this transaction, is someone who doesn't have a choice whether they want to pay for it because they'll be thrown in jail for not paying taxes.
That's what I don't understand - why don't more businesses use charging stations as a means of attracting customers? Maybe you would have some logistical issues if the customer wanted to walk around the store or shop while their phone is charging (i.e., making sure that the phone was safe from theft), but don't you have a captive audience while they're waiting for it to charge? I was at a local Verizon kiosk in one of the big train stations in Chicago, and while I was talking to one of the sales reps, 3-4 people who worked nearby dropped off their phones to be charged. It's a very helpful service, one that I'm sure many people would find valuable.
'Open, distributed projects have the potential to outperform the traditional closed, controlled research model by reducing costs and duplication of effort, making it easy to collect and analyze masses of data from diverse sources, and allowing the best brains to participate no matter where they live" .... I guess I'm a little unclear on how you're supposed to make boatloads of money through that approach ...
As someone who reads through six or seven different business sections a day, the writing quality of the WSJ and the NYT is much better than that of Bloomberg, for example, or The Financial Times. It's also better than Reuters or AP. If you read them all regularly, you'll pick up quickly which ones are better.
I have to agree - would the net neutrality issue go away if people were simply charged based on how much bandwidth they use -- kind of like what happens in the mobile internet already? If people want unlimited internet, they can pay for it. If they don't, why should they have to subsidize the network infrastructure expenses needed to continuously stream NetFlix to their neighbor's house when all they do is read email and Slashdot?
One could argue that they make more sales because they give consumers a greater opportunity to evade taxes, thereby making their products seem more attractively priced to the tax evader.
" ... fraudulent governments which are owned and operated by multinational corporations ... "
Don't be so eager to wave the white flag. You have more power than you imagine.
I remember reading a history of the Commodore 64 a few years ago where one of the early pioneers of that system mentioned that Bill Gates (at least back then) was actually a decent guy and Steve Jobs was always a "hustler" ...
Indirectly eliminating your vocational opportunities by working at Apple: that's not a bug in your employment contract, it's a feature.
Can someone explain to me why what operating system these laptops run on is relevant to this story?
"You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down and you see a tortoise, Leon, it's crawling towards you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help, but you're not helping. Why is that Leon?"