I'm beginning to think that ICANN is just an incredibly clever plan to move us away from domain names altogether. While making fat bags of loot, of course.
To what, I have no idea. Googling a well-known company is fine, but as a startup it would be tough. It seems like it may bring the problem with domain names (your name needs not just be locally unique or even nationally unique, but increasingly globally unique). You want to say "to learn more, visit our website, somenewcompany.com" in your voice/tv ads and in print. The more domain names you get, the more likely they're just going to land on a squatter or porn (or porn squatter) site and never wind up at your site.
You don't want to say "to learn more, just google somenewcompany", as it's too unspecific. For example, try googling "supply depot." What we may wind up with is every company having a name as "unique" as XKCD.
I'm beginning to long for sites to be separated purely by geography, the only TLDs being country codes. Sure, it's a crappy system, but at least then you're less likely to be in the same naming pool with a small Romanian auto repair shop, a Japanese anime and an Australian outback excursion tour company.
Unfortunately, you've neglected an extremely crucial factor. Demand can be fleeting, especially in this case. You're assuming it's constant or drops off a lot less than I believe is likely in this case. The same people who would have purchased those additional 40 units may now instead purchase a different song from whatever new game has come out. And they may be from your competitor. This is part of where the music biz has tried to help cover their bases by getting a few near-monopolies. But it's still a major factor, since in reality people spend their money on all sorts of things, not just music. So the money they might have spent on your song could well go to something else because they don't want to pay your price. Then by the time you decide to drop your price, they're not interested anymore and you still don't get their money.
You mean experts assume that. Average, ordinary people enjoy getting a bargain because they know it tastes just as good & gets you just as drunk.
Not really. I'm definitely no expert on wine. But if I see a bottle priced at $5, I tend to steer clear of it unless I can get a sample or a recommendation from someone I trust. Wine is an area where there are vast amounts of different producers of the same products. Compare the number of merlots in your local liquor store to the number of vodkas.
Sorry, I just don't think that makes sense. I get where you're trying to go with it, though. But people don't buy THE song, they buy a COPY of the song (or, depending on who you ask, a license to play the song). The thing you're supplying is a copy. Copies are unlimited.
The economic theories involving supply and demand are based on scarcity. Trying to apply them to a resource that isn't scarce is like trying to apply them to a market with infinite customers. The math just doesn't add up. The economic theories that apply here are more about pricing and volume, where the production of the goods is a minor factor.
None of that doesn't prevent companies from being stupid, though. They can do things that will result in them making less profit and it still doesn't disprove the economic theories.
The problem is that developing organ replacement is going to be a long, long road. We're not going to have hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs, pancreases, eyeballs, skin, etc. all at once. Until then, immunosuppressant will still be pretty vital. And even then, immunosuppressants are useful for a lot of things outside the whole tissue transplant area. The better we are able to manually control our immune systems, the more options that gives us in medicine.
I'm sure glad they didn't follow his advice ten years ago. If this new method works, it will help people far more than ten years of only spending money on organ replacement probably would have.
Yes, but surely you see the flip side to that coin? Charging more of a product decreases overall sales, especially when there is no large cost for greater "production" (in this case only bandwidth). Selling 100 units at a profit of $1 each makes you 5% less money selling 140 units at a profit of 75 cents each.
I think the idea of charging a premium is much more limited to scarce resources and items where your potential buyer pool is much smaller. Here the you have a massive potential buying pool and no scarcity.
Such a crazy world. So odd that when demand goes up the price goes up. Not like there is a limited supply of bits. Greater volume should mean lower per-unit pricing.
Damn dangling quotes. Nested quote is mine. Sorry for the confusions. Just proof that we all make mistakes. Wonder if this could be a corollary to Muphry's Law.
However, it is incorrect to equate the Louisiana Civil Code with the Napoleonic Code. Although the Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was never in force in Louisiana, as it was enacted in 1804, after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 has been continuously revised and updated since its enactment, it is still considered the controlling authority in the state.
While it would have been true to say Louisiana's legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic code and is very different from the common law systems in all the other states, it's not the same thing as saying it uses Napoleonic code.
Hope you don't take offense for having this pointed out.
Just like movies - it's easy to criticize the MPAA, but who is going to pay the millions of dollars to shoot a major movie if everyone simply copies content without paying for it?
I was agreeing with you up until this point.
Most people's problems with the MPAA has been with their willingness to fight technology rather than embrace it, often by using the laws they have paid to have put in place. They strive to not even try new methods of movie delivery, such as releasing a film at the same time on PPV as in theaters, easy non-DRM encumbered downloads for a less than a rental, etc. These other methods might fail, but the MPAA (or the studios that make it up) haven't even really experimented in these areas.
I know you didn't bring it up, but the RIAA is another example. Not only do you have the abusive legal stuff, but you have the fact that they are really just a layer of lawyers, managers and distributors that are no longer as crucial to their industry as they once were. They have done more to try releasing their content in new ways, but they still only do it begrudgingly and so they wind up shooting themselves in the foot. For example, the whole fact that for all these years, the only way to legally purchase music from a lot of popular artists was to buy into the whole iTunes+DRM bullshit. They only wanted to shift their business model if it would still give all the useless people the same fat paychecks as they had always gotten, without paying the actual content creators a nickel more.
I was meaning crime in the general definition, not the legal definitions (i.e. "criminal" versus "civil"). Failure to give evidence isn't the issue, it's accusing someone of a crime, which is one of the basics of libel. The failure to give evidence is just a way of saying that they accused someone of a crime that there was no proof of. If there was evidence they committed a crime, then it would be a lot easier to defend against accusing them of it being libel.
Of course, there's a question of whether the targets of libel would be considered public officials.
I have no idea why the police raided them. For all I know they ARE bad cops. But I just feel this story is far too under-reported to jump to that conclusion.
Your main problem (other than your confusion on how the karma system works) is that you believe you can read the strength of emotion in a post on the internet. That's really only true if you type in all caps with several exclamations. As it was, I'm simply stating a fact that Obama's history shows that he is highly competent and that anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of that history (which is no excuse these days with the information at your fingertips), or biased against him.
Saying you're not sure if the man is competent with all that information is not the same thing as being neutral. If I said the jury is still out on whether or not you're a child molester, that's not the same thing as neutral.
As an Obama supporter, it shames me that I share company with someone so lacking in critical thinking skills.
Nobody said Obama was incompetent...It's all about the context
Name one competent government employee. Obama Jury's still out on that one.
You fail at context.
I'd guess that you make a habit of such fallacies, and that this tendancy might be part of the reason why you post at 0...
I don't post at 0, I post at 1. Anonymous Cowards and people with bad karma post at 0. Your userid indicates you've been reading slashdot a while; It's a shame you haven't been paying much attention. Maybe you shouldn't guess so much.
Also, this account is about a week old. My previous account posted at 2. You do know that new accounts don't magically start out with excellent karma, right? And feel free to embarrass yourself further by assuming you know why I created a new account. Why stop when you're on such a roll?
I'm not making any statements on whether he's "good" or "bad." I'm merely making one about competence. Anyone who can look at the guy's qualifications and claim he's not competent is capable of some massively willful ignorance.
Perhaps you should check Wikipedia for "libel." That's the crime the GP was referring to. You can't print that someone committed a crime that you have no evidence to prove.
Yes, but you seem to be missing the distinction. Waiting a day or two for some confirmation and the full story before accusing the police would in no way harm the people they raided. In fact, it would help them more because then you'd limit the number of the times you jump the gun and support someone who might in fact be guilty.
If you start claiming EVERY government raid is questionable, then people stop listening to you because there are plenty of times we WANT the police to raid actual criminals.
FYI, the "Minne" comes from a native american word for "water." That's why there's lots of similar names: Minnesota, Minnetonka, Minnehaha, etc. So "Minneapolis" is a mishmash of the two.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm beginning to think that ICANN is just an incredibly clever plan to move us away from domain names altogether. While making fat bags of loot, of course.
To what, I have no idea. Googling a well-known company is fine, but as a startup it would be tough. It seems like it may bring the problem with domain names (your name needs not just be locally unique or even nationally unique, but increasingly globally unique). You want to say "to learn more, visit our website, somenewcompany.com" in your voice/tv ads and in print. The more domain names you get, the more likely they're just going to land on a squatter or porn (or porn squatter) site and never wind up at your site.
You don't want to say "to learn more, just google somenewcompany", as it's too unspecific. For example, try googling "supply depot." What we may wind up with is every company having a name as "unique" as XKCD.
I'm beginning to long for sites to be separated purely by geography, the only TLDs being country codes. Sure, it's a crappy system, but at least then you're less likely to be in the same naming pool with a small Romanian auto repair shop, a Japanese anime and an Australian outback excursion tour company.
Unfortunately, you've neglected an extremely crucial factor. Demand can be fleeting, especially in this case. You're assuming it's constant or drops off a lot less than I believe is likely in this case. The same people who would have purchased those additional 40 units may now instead purchase a different song from whatever new game has come out. And they may be from your competitor. This is part of where the music biz has tried to help cover their bases by getting a few near-monopolies. But it's still a major factor, since in reality people spend their money on all sorts of things, not just music. So the money they might have spent on your song could well go to something else because they don't want to pay your price. Then by the time you decide to drop your price, they're not interested anymore and you still don't get their money.
You mean experts assume that. Average, ordinary people enjoy getting a bargain because they know it tastes just as good & gets you just as drunk.
Not really. I'm definitely no expert on wine. But if I see a bottle priced at $5, I tend to steer clear of it unless I can get a sample or a recommendation from someone I trust. Wine is an area where there are vast amounts of different producers of the same products. Compare the number of merlots in your local liquor store to the number of vodkas.
Sorry, I just don't think that makes sense. I get where you're trying to go with it, though. But people don't buy THE song, they buy a COPY of the song (or, depending on who you ask, a license to play the song). The thing you're supplying is a copy. Copies are unlimited.
The economic theories involving supply and demand are based on scarcity. Trying to apply them to a resource that isn't scarce is like trying to apply them to a market with infinite customers. The math just doesn't add up. The economic theories that apply here are more about pricing and volume, where the production of the goods is a minor factor.
None of that doesn't prevent companies from being stupid, though. They can do things that will result in them making less profit and it still doesn't disprove the economic theories.
The problem is that developing organ replacement is going to be a long, long road. We're not going to have hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs, pancreases, eyeballs, skin, etc. all at once. Until then, immunosuppressant will still be pretty vital. And even then, immunosuppressants are useful for a lot of things outside the whole tissue transplant area. The better we are able to manually control our immune systems, the more options that gives us in medicine.
I'm sure glad they didn't follow his advice ten years ago. If this new method works, it will help people far more than ten years of only spending money on organ replacement probably would have.
Admittedly, I haven't read the article, but I have read comments by people who apparently have.
I think it wouldn't work for allergies because the (very simplified) method with the new drug is this:
The problem with allergies is that you're continually taking foreign substances into your body, not just a single time.
Can't we do both? You know, eggs and baskets and all that.
Yes, but surely you see the flip side to that coin? Charging more of a product decreases overall sales, especially when there is no large cost for greater "production" (in this case only bandwidth). Selling 100 units at a profit of $1 each makes you 5% less money selling 140 units at a profit of 75 cents each.
I think the idea of charging a premium is much more limited to scarce resources and items where your potential buyer pool is much smaller. Here the you have a massive potential buying pool and no scarcity.
Such a crazy world. So odd that when demand goes up the price goes up. Not like there is a limited supply of bits. Greater volume should mean lower per-unit pricing.
Damn dangling quotes. Nested quote is mine. Sorry for the confusions. Just proof that we all make mistakes. Wonder if this could be a corollary to Muphry's Law.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
However, it is incorrect to equate the Louisiana Civil Code with the Napoleonic Code. Although the Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was never in force in Louisiana, as it was enacted in 1804, after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 has been continuously revised and updated since its enactment, it is still considered the controlling authority in the state.
While it would have been true to say Louisiana's legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic code and is very different from the common law systems in all the other states, it's not the same thing as saying it uses Napoleonic code.
Hope you don't take offense for having this pointed out.
Because YRO is one of the most frequently misused topics. Seriously.
They say the enjoy coffee a lot yet drink utter swill. ANYTHING from starbucks is raging crap.
Can't a guy who loves quality toro also enjoy a fishstick?
And your post added nothing to the logic of this discussion.
That's why we never get anywhere talking politics. Too many jackasses on all sides ready to take potshots at any opportunity.
Just like movies - it's easy to criticize the MPAA, but who is going to pay the millions of dollars to shoot a major movie if everyone simply copies content without paying for it?
I was agreeing with you up until this point.
Most people's problems with the MPAA has been with their willingness to fight technology rather than embrace it, often by using the laws they have paid to have put in place. They strive to not even try new methods of movie delivery, such as releasing a film at the same time on PPV as in theaters, easy non-DRM encumbered downloads for a less than a rental, etc. These other methods might fail, but the MPAA (or the studios that make it up) haven't even really experimented in these areas.
I know you didn't bring it up, but the RIAA is another example. Not only do you have the abusive legal stuff, but you have the fact that they are really just a layer of lawyers, managers and distributors that are no longer as crucial to their industry as they once were. They have done more to try releasing their content in new ways, but they still only do it begrudgingly and so they wind up shooting themselves in the foot. For example, the whole fact that for all these years, the only way to legally purchase music from a lot of popular artists was to buy into the whole iTunes+DRM bullshit. They only wanted to shift their business model if it would still give all the useless people the same fat paychecks as they had always gotten, without paying the actual content creators a nickel more.
I was meaning crime in the general definition, not the legal definitions (i.e. "criminal" versus "civil"). Failure to give evidence isn't the issue, it's accusing someone of a crime, which is one of the basics of libel. The failure to give evidence is just a way of saying that they accused someone of a crime that there was no proof of. If there was evidence they committed a crime, then it would be a lot easier to defend against accusing them of it being libel.
Of course, there's a question of whether the targets of libel would be considered public officials.
I have no idea why the police raided them. For all I know they ARE bad cops. But I just feel this story is far too under-reported to jump to that conclusion.
Your main problem (other than your confusion on how the karma system works) is that you believe you can read the strength of emotion in a post on the internet. That's really only true if you type in all caps with several exclamations. As it was, I'm simply stating a fact that Obama's history shows that he is highly competent and that anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of that history (which is no excuse these days with the information at your fingertips), or biased against him.
Saying you're not sure if the man is competent with all that information is not the same thing as being neutral. If I said the jury is still out on whether or not you're a child molester, that's not the same thing as neutral.
As an Obama supporter, it shames me that I share company with someone so lacking in critical thinking skills.
Good luck to you as well.
Nobody said Obama was incompetent...It's all about the context
Name one competent government employee.
Obama
Jury's still out on that one.
You fail at context.
I'd guess that you make a habit of such fallacies, and that this tendancy might be part of the reason why you post at 0...
I don't post at 0, I post at 1. Anonymous Cowards and people with bad karma post at 0. Your userid indicates you've been reading slashdot a while; It's a shame you haven't been paying much attention. Maybe you shouldn't guess so much.
Also, this account is about a week old. My previous account posted at 2. You do know that new accounts don't magically start out with excellent karma, right? And feel free to embarrass yourself further by assuming you know why I created a new account. Why stop when you're on such a roll?
I'm not making any statements on whether he's "good" or "bad." I'm merely making one about competence. Anyone who can look at the guy's qualifications and claim he's not competent is capable of some massively willful ignorance.
Obama.
Perhaps you should check Wikipedia for "libel." That's the crime the GP was referring to. You can't print that someone committed a crime that you have no evidence to prove.
This was a problem of MS's own making.
Yes, and they paid dearly fo... oh, wait.
Yes, but you seem to be missing the distinction. Waiting a day or two for some confirmation and the full story before accusing the police would in no way harm the people they raided. In fact, it would help them more because then you'd limit the number of the times you jump the gun and support someone who might in fact be guilty.
If you start claiming EVERY government raid is questionable, then people stop listening to you because there are plenty of times we WANT the police to raid actual criminals.
Like all humans, the slashdot crowd does not learn from history. That's "history" spell R-E-I-S-E-R.
FYI, the "Minne" comes from a native american word for "water." That's why there's lots of similar names: Minnesota, Minnetonka, Minnehaha, etc. So "Minneapolis" is a mishmash of the two.