Good point. I agree, the current commodity bull run has as much to do with rising demand as with the dollar depreciating. Whoever modded the parent troll needs to get out from under their own bridge.
The PS3 is launching at EUR 500/600, just like in the US. However, the PS2 launched at EUR 450. What a difference a few years make!
(FYI, advertized prices include VAT/sales tax in Europe, which usually runs in the 15-20% range. So the "EUR 1 = USD 1" rate retailers are using today is about right. Ask the British instead if you want to hear about genuine exchange rate rape!;))
Also available, the Venturi Fetish. (Warning: Flash site with sound. Google "Venturi Fetish" if you don't like it) 0-62 (100 kph) in 4.5 seconds (for the record, a 911 Carrera S takes 4.8 seconds). Top speed is capped at 105 mph but you're not supposed to drive any faster anyway.;)
It's the very first all-electric production car that is usable every day (i.e. sufficient range and fast recharge times). It comes with every safety and comfort feature expected in a modern high-end sportscar.
The only downside is its price: an "affordable" 540k EUR. Maybe I should start a PayPal donation page...
Stakeholders == everyone involved with the company: shareholders, but also employees, unions, the state, local communities, society as a whole, even the environment.
The idea that stakeholders, as opposed to mereley shareholders, should have their say in the way businesses are run, is a central concept of European-style capitalism.
In practice, politicians will say "stakeholders" while they do mean "shareholders", hoping people will be tricked into thinking their constituents were asked about it.;)
My own tinfoil theory on the switch isn't only that Apple had grown weary of IBM's under-delivering, but also that IBM could not afford to keep Apple as a customer.
Limited fab capacity? Check Huge orders coming in from next generation console manufacturers? Check
Struggling to meet future demand, IBM had to choose between Apple and console manufacturers. IBM chose the latter.
Being less reliant on oil is a serious economic benefit.
You hit the nail right on the head. In fact, I'd argue that the main reason the US has to go Kyoto is not to save the global environment (because it might already be too late), but to save the US economy. Namely, to force companies that are too focused on their next quarterly results to save themselves.
Instead of complaining about the cost of Kyoto on the US economy, maybe US politicians should ask themselves why EU politicians are in favor of Kyoto. Seriously, do you really believe it's because they care about the environment? Or even their constituencies? Do you really expect them to be less sold out to Big Business than in the US? Something tells me their backers did the math.
The US *has* to reduce its energy consumption lest it faces utter economic ruin in the coming decades. Right now, the US is burning twice as much energy per capita as the EU or Japan. If you didn't know already, the EU is a larger economy than the US, and both the EU's and Japan's industrial sector are larger as a share of GDP than the US's. The US must be doing something seriously wrong somewhere.
When Peak Oil comes, the EU and Japan will have decades of technical and organizational expertise in energy efficience behind them. They will be able to bear the burden, as they will be thoroughly prepared.
The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.
To put it in a nutshell, it is going to make the 30's look like a walk in the park. And it's going to suck even more when all the equipment needed to adapt the US has to be imported from China or the EU and paid in overly-expensive yuans or euros because no US company even cared about the looming disaster when it was still time.
On the other hand, it the US does get its act together and starts saving energy in earnest soon, then it might manage to pull it off.
So called "Developing nations" dont have to conform to it. China the 2nd largest economy and our #1 economic competitor is a "Developing" nation? That just doesn't make sense.
Indeed, it doesn't. Your #1 economic competitor is not China, it's the European Union (actually, the US isn't even the world's #1 economy any more, the EU is).
You should ask yourself why the EU is the main driving force behind Kyoto. Maybe because they found out Kyoto would actually be a boon to their economy?
And we managed to elect Mr Chirac not only once, but twice!:(
We are talking about democracy, or the lack thereof, in the EU. The problem here is that democracy means the majority sets the agenda. And if the majority does not care, you can as well just forget it.
Face it, geeks are but a tiny minority. We're just small change. We don't matter. [i]All it is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing[/i]. Or for most people to not care. Hell, even most decision makers don't have a clue.
That's the point. The unelected C want to pass this directive (despite the member states' governments, the EU Parliament, the public and the European software industry being against it) as a certain large US software company is bribing their commissioners.
Enough of this "democratic deficit" BS! The Commission is appointed by the national head of states, has to win the confidence vote of the Parliament and can be overthrown by the Parliament in a no-confidence vote, just as your own national government!
As for the Council, it is composed by national ministers. I fail to see how it is different from what happens in your national capital.
To put it in a nutshell, the EU's executive is no less democratic than your national government. If you are OK with your national government but complain about the EU's lack of democracy and unaccountability, I suggest you apply for immigration to a really "democratic" country like Russia or China immediately.
On the other hand, the fact that lobbies and their puppets tried to submarine the issue at a meeting about a totally different topic (namely agriculture), or the fact that some ministers change their vote once they arrive in Brussels is indeed outrageous. But this has hardly anything to do with the corruption of the European Union as an institution, and everything to do with the corruption of national politicians.
Intel and AMD are in the awkward position of needing to create a market for new processors in a world where a 1Ghz processor will do most office tasks brilliantly
Don't worry, Microsoft has that covered... when Longhorn (eventually) comes out!;p
This position reminds me of how once-quality consumer electronics companies like Sony found out they had to start producing crap that breaks down quickly, or else people would wait like 15 years before purchasing their products again.
Please someone tell me why Hollywood is allowed to put a Ferrari into a movie (even though the driver is the villain), but you can't put a Ferrari into a video game if you're not EA.
I'm frustrated that we can't have real car names in GTA, that we can't get Porsches or Ferraris in Gran Turismo 4, that you could not drive Ferraris or Mercedeses in pursuit mode in earlier versions of Need for Speed because "it'd hurt the company's image to run away from cops", or that game makers are not allowed to implement car damage because of a handful picky car manufacturers. This is so ridiculous that you have to drive a Ruf (a Porsche tuner) instead of a genuine Porsche in GT3/4 because EA holds exclusive rights on Porsche cars in video games (but is not using it, as ricers are all the rage at the moment).
Simulations are supposed to, duh, simulate reality. So how an Earth what is possible on a video DVD what is not possible on game DVD? Can you imagine Fox barring Dreamworks from using BMW's because Fox owns exclusive rights to the BMW license? That's utter nonsense.
By the way, the Porsche/Ferrari policy also makes little sense as far as the bottom line is concerned. Games are free advertising. If your game is not in a game, you're losing sales to more lenient competitors. Exhibit A: Gran Turismo made a star of the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. Before GT3's success, nobody had heard of this car in the US. But so many asked DaimlerChrysler for EVOs that they eventually decided to import it.
Disclaimer: I'm working at one of the abovementioned companies, and I'm ashamed they still don't get it. I for one hope NCSoft wins, and that game makers are allowed to put in whatever content they wish.
We all know most politicians only remember their constituents 6 months before elections. I agree that they are doing a terrible job as representatives of the people.
The trouble is that they're also terrible representatives of business interests. As you mentioned, such short-sighted legislation is only pushing America further into technological irrelevance.
One interesting thing, is I have _never_ seen a price increase or decrease for any goods or services due to the price of gasoline/diesel fuel which is pretty volatile compared to other commodities and inflation. Its kinda weird I think.
I guess you have never heard of the late 70's, have you?
On the other hand, it's true that smaller variations are "dampened" by hedging. Every large company is hedging against a rise in crude prices, but only those directly concerned hedge against for instance a rise in coffee prices. On the other hand, hedging won't save you if there is a sudden paradigm shift (e.g. Iran revolution), or if the long-term trend is up because demand grows faster than supply (e.g. "Peak Oil").
Indeed. The Airport Extreme card is a regular Airport Extreme card, but you ALSO need an adapter - which is not available separately for the time being.
First of all, P2P will be required. When the #1 online music store is barely breaking even at $0.99 a pop, imagine the profitability when you have to upload 500 MB instead of 5 but can only sell for $19.99 a pop...
The bottom line is that the **AA have to write off 10% of their customer base if they ever want to keep the remaining 90%.
Every network basically relies on core nodes, and leeches. 10% of all players are typically the source for 90% of the trafic. The other 90% depend on those 10%. (Disclaimer: made up numbers of course, but you all know the 10/90 or 20/80 drill)
This is especially true given the asymetric nature of today's broadband connections. In a pure P2P network, your average download speed will be your average upload speed, which is a waste of downward bandwidth. Or, if you want to get that movie in 30 minutes, you basically have to upload the rest of the day. While 10% of the user base has no problem with uploading all day long, the average Jane won't do that.
If you can remove core nodes from the equation, then you win. The **AA are trying to do so with lawsuits, but it won't fly. The more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers... onto better networks. The **AA cannot beat P2P. What they can do however, is join it.
Basically all they have to do is to start a system where consumers pay for downloading, but get paid for uploading (of course at a lower rate than consumers pay for downloads). Do that, and you can be sure the top 10% will remain on your network and not "leak" official releases on illegal networks. After all, every time someone is downloading a movie that you uploaded to an illegal network, you're losing a sale. With the top 10% away from illegal networks, download rates and availability of new content will suck major time on them. So, the remaining 90% will have little choice but come onto a legal network and fork over those $19.99.
It will also attract ISPs to their side. Right now, ISPs are pushing for more widespread piracy, because piracy is what is pushing broadband. Instant, unlimited entertainment to the home is the killer app of DSL, we all know this, and so do ISPs. Earlier this year, for instance, the state telecom company in Germany launched a barrage of ads pushing just that, without mentioning where it'd come from (obviously from illegal sources) - just as another arm of the state was starting to prosecute major uploaders... But remember, ADSL connections are asymetric. Who will be very happy to be paid to step in and fill the void? Bingo, ISPs.
Of course, something tells me they won't do that, because they seem to care more about control than about money.;p
You fail to understand basic economic theory. It will be plentiful and cheap even with higher demand than there currently is today.
You're spewing off complete nonsense. If demand rises faster than supply, then prices rise. If prices rise, then currently unprofitable reserves become profitable, and production rises. On the other hand, if this production increase makes supply grow faster than demand, then prices will go down, until a new equilibrium is reached.
However, prices cannot drop lower than production costs, which are currently too high to be profitable. It thus follows that the new equilibrium has to be higher than the current one.
If prices were to be lower in the future, it'd mean that untapped reserves would actually be cheaper to drill than current oil fields. So, if those untapped reserves were already profitable at current prices, why aren't they being tapped? The very fact that they are not (in spite of the growing demand) proves you wrong. By the way I have a newsflash for you: offshore drilling is fiendishly expensive. Even if new offshore oil fields do manage to keep oil flowing, do not count on it to lower crude prices.
The 2003-2004 oid shock is not only about the Iraq war. It also has a lot to do with long-term phenomena such as the awareness that demand might be growing faster than supply (the dreaded Peak Oil - whether it has already happened or not is not the point, the point is that is WILL happen), and the depreciation of the dollar. (Since sheiks can buy less per barrel sold, they'll raise oil prices to make up for the loss of purchasing power, just as in 1973).
It only matters in the long run, much like the stock market. When zoomed in on weekly and even daily trades the stock market it is highly volitile, but spread out over a sufficiently long period of time period of time is a very predictable growth pattern. Oil prices have performed similarly, although in a downward(aka cheaper) trend.
You're in for a nasty surprise, my friend. Never, ever underestimate the power of demographics. Stock markets have only risen over time because there has been more demand than offer - because there has been been more people around 40 investing for their retirements, than people past 65 liquidating their pension plan. This wasn't always the case, though. In the 50's and 60's, stocks notably underperformed (vs other investments) although the economy was doing pretty good. At the very same time, there were only few 40 year-olds, because so many had died during WW2. Stock markets only started skyrocketing in the 80's - at the same time, there were few 65 year-olds (WW2 generation) and many 40 year-olds (boomers). If the demographics-as-fundamental-economic-force theory is to be trusted, we'll enter a 20-year downward period in about 5 years.
We'll see whether oil will be cheaper than it is today - but in your shoes, I'd be stockpiling European oil and nuclear stocks (e.g. Total or Areva) right now. [/OT].
Huh? I didn't know Halliburton even cared about astroturfing on slashdot! I never said oil supplies were going to run out within a decade. I merely said that that prices were going to rise enough to make small planes unprofitable. I am aware that as prices rise, more drilling sites will become profitable. But the fact that rising prices increase viable reserves does not change the fact that they did rise in the first place!
Economics will keep our oil prices cheap and supplies plentiful for centuries.
Nonsense. You do know the amount of oil on this planet is determined by geology, not economics, right? What economics tell you is merely that oil will never "run out", but that once it gets rare enough, it will be so expensive that nobody will be using it anyway. So yes, economics will keep supplies at a sufficient level for centuries, but definitely NOT cheap.
This is the case because oil is still relatively cheap. Expect this to change in the future.
Btw the high-density 747 (think 600 people that do not seem to care about knee injuries;p) is heavily used for short-range flights... in Japan. I'm talking direct flights here. It's just that the land is crowded enough that there are very few landing spots, but many many passengers. Expect the same to happen in China or India, but with the A380. Especially since their rail network sucks (unlike in Japan).
Rising oil prices. Megajumbos should use less fuel per passenger (I think, gotta google that). If fuel prices keep rising (peak oil and stuff), the smaller commuter planes suddenly make less sense.
Chinese / Indian economic boom. At the rate things are going nowadays, Asian airlines will be using those for short-range direct flights. Just like the Japanese do with the 747. Distances are huge in China or India, and both the rail and road systems suck.
We're hearing that goold old SS is failing because of demographics - ie that employed people will be unable to pay for pensioners because there too many pensioners for too few employed people.
The sad truth, however, is that the very same reason that is killing SS, will kill stock markets. We often hear the myth that stock markets outperform other investments on the long term. The truth is, stock markets can only rise if there are more people willing to buy, than people willing to sell, i.e. if there are more 40-year-olds than 65-year-olds.
Think about it: Stock markets rise because demand is growing faster than offer. But who is usually buying stock? People saving up for their retirement. So they buy stocks (or shares in mutual funds, which then buy stocks). What is usually selling stock? Retired people - that are selling to finance their retirement.
In other words, if the ratio of retired people to employed people increases, offer grows faster than demand. Markets tank.
And this, ladies and gentlement, is the reason the market will be bearish for at least two decades once boomers hit 65 (that is in merely 5 years).
Remember the boom years of the 50's and 60's, during which stock markets notably underperformed? No wonder demand was weak, if there were fewer 40-year-olds than usual, since so many had died 20 years ago during WW2. The stock market only got real big under Reagan. Surprise, this is exactly when the first boomers reached 40 year olds, whilst there were very few sellers (WW2 generation): demand was much stronger than offer. Markets rose, and kept rising until today. However in 5 years, there will be more people wanting to sell than people willing to buy. In other words, IRAs are a disaster waiting to happen.
The only way out is if the Chinese come in and do a massive buy out, 80's Japan style.
Re:Missing scenario
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
To be honest, as long as the renminbi remains pegged to the dollar, as long as the Japanese Central Bank is buying dollars to slow the rise of the yen vs the renminbi, and as long as European companies are forced to cut into their margins to remain competitive vs the Japanese*, then American consumers won't see too big of an increase.
Oh wait, they are already. OIL PRICES.
Remember, the 1973 oil shock wasn't only in retaliation to Western support for Israel in the Kippur War, but also to make up for the loss of purchasing power since the mid 60's. I am convinced the recent rise in oil prices is linked to the depreciation of the dollar, and not only to Chinese growth increasing demand faster than reserves are discovered, or insecurity in Russia or the Middle East.
If I remember correctly, since Nov. 2000 the euro's appreciation has more or less matched oil's ($.85 to $1.35, vs $30 to $50 : +60% in both cases). When arab investors became persona non grata in America after 9/11, petrodollars started getting increasingly invested in Europe (or in China), which fuels the euro's rise over the dollar. The resulting fall of the dollar makes the Arabs painfully aware of the loss of purchasing power they're getting (since they're getting fewer euros per barrel), so they have to improve their prices. Oh yeah, and they convert their dollars into euros event faster.
So far, American consumers have been protected from the effects of the dollar's depreciation by external factors. However, if China has to increase its prices because of the increase in oil prices, if the Federal Reserve has to increase interest rates, if Japan stops being able to buy those T-bills, or if OPEC suddenly starts demanding payment in euros, American households will feel the heat. Or even be wiped out.
* I'm working at a small German sports car manufacturer. We're selling our entry-level model at a loss in the US because we're supposed to be 20% more expensive than a Nissan 350 Z, but we cannot afford to be twice as expensive...
OK, I could only read the executive summary (will the FBI send michael to Gitmo for orchestrating a DDoS attack on a government website?;p) so I might have missed it, but they do not seem to see Judgment Day coming.
As Cheney said: Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Well Richard, it is too early to say. Wait until you have to repay those 30 year T-bonds. Reagan started the policy of voluntary massive deficits. That deficit has to be paid back 30 years later. Given how the current administration is unable to pay only interest without running a skyhigh deficit (in other words, borrowing again to be able to pay interests!), I don't expect it to be able to pay back the capital...
And if I count right, 1981 + 30 = 2011. Expect the US to default on its debt by 2015. There is no way the US governement can afford to use half its budget to pay back its debts.
Too big to fail? Hell, France defaulted several times under Louis XIV, although the debt was in French currency, and although France was the leading world power at the time. After Louis XIV's never-ending wars and corruption ruined France, England had free reign to achieve total world domination during the XVIIIth century.
I'd say this is more about improving access to customers. Remember, this is an industry that has to cope with moral stigma. An industry that the so-called "moral majority" wants to censor. The porn industry faces an uphill battle when it comes to distribution, and is unhappy about this. The mainstream movie industry only cares about keeping the level of control it currently enjoys. No wonder Hollywood is scared to death of p2p, but San Fernando lives with it.
Porn embraced video tapes because customers felt easier renting a small package at the video store (especially if you can conceal it between a couple mainstream movies), rather than standing in line at a porn cinema or sex shop. After all, you can't wrap a brown bag around a cinema.;p
Porn embraced the Internet because customers didn't even have to face the glare (or winks) of the videostore clerk any more. And also, as it was cheaper to distribute.
No to return on topic, I fail to see what advantage HD-DVD/Blu Ray brings over vanilla DVD, as far as distribution is concerned...
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I agree, the current commodity bull run has as much to do with rising demand as with the dollar depreciating. Whoever modded the parent troll needs to get out from under their own bridge.
;))
The PS3 is launching at EUR 500/600, just like in the US. However, the PS2 launched at EUR 450. What a difference a few years make!
(FYI, advertized prices include VAT/sales tax in Europe, which usually runs in the 15-20% range. So the "EUR 1 = USD 1" rate retailers are using today is about right. Ask the British instead if you want to hear about genuine exchange rate rape!
Also available, the Venturi Fetish. (Warning: Flash site with sound. Google "Venturi Fetish" if you don't like it) ;)
0-62 (100 kph) in 4.5 seconds (for the record, a 911 Carrera S takes 4.8 seconds).
Top speed is capped at 105 mph but you're not supposed to drive any faster anyway.
It's the very first all-electric production car that is usable every day (i.e. sufficient range and fast recharge times). It comes with every safety and comfort feature expected in a modern high-end sportscar.
The only downside is its price: an "affordable" 540k EUR. Maybe I should start a PayPal donation page...
Stakeholders == everyone involved with the company: shareholders, but also employees, unions, the state, local communities, society as a whole, even the environment.
;)
The idea that stakeholders, as opposed to mereley shareholders, should have their say in the way businesses are run, is a central concept of European-style capitalism.
In practice, politicians will say "stakeholders" while they do mean "shareholders", hoping people will be tricked into thinking their constituents were asked about it.
My own tinfoil theory on the switch isn't only that Apple had grown weary of IBM's under-delivering, but also that IBM could not afford to keep Apple as a customer.
;)
Limited fab capacity? Check
Huge orders coming in from next generation console manufacturers? Check
Struggling to meet future demand, IBM had to choose between Apple and console manufacturers. IBM chose the latter.
just my 2cp, of course
The EUCD is the European counterpart to the DMCA.
I fail to see how it would be successfully used in a copyright infringement suit about P2P file sharing, though.
You hit the nail right on the head. In fact, I'd argue that the main reason the US has to go Kyoto is not to save the global environment (because it might already be too late), but to save the US economy. Namely, to force companies that are too focused on their next quarterly results to save themselves.
Instead of complaining about the cost of Kyoto on the US economy, maybe US politicians should ask themselves why EU politicians are in favor of Kyoto. Seriously, do you really believe it's because they care about the environment? Or even their constituencies? Do you really expect them to be less sold out to Big Business than in the US?
Something tells me their backers did the math.
The US *has* to reduce its energy consumption lest it faces utter economic ruin in the coming decades. Right now, the US is burning twice as much energy per capita as the EU or Japan.
If you didn't know already, the EU is a larger economy than the US, and both the EU's and Japan's industrial sector are larger as a share of GDP than the US's. The US must be doing something seriously wrong somewhere.
When Peak Oil comes, the EU and Japan will have decades of technical and organizational expertise in energy efficience behind them. They will be able to bear the burden, as they will be thoroughly prepared.
The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.
To put it in a nutshell, it is going to make the 30's look like a walk in the park.
And it's going to suck even more when all the equipment needed to adapt the US has to be imported from China or the EU and paid in overly-expensive yuans or euros because no US company even cared about the looming disaster when it was still time.
On the other hand, it the US does get its act together and starts saving energy in earnest soon, then it might manage to pull it off.
Indeed, it doesn't. Your #1 economic competitor is not China, it's the European Union (actually, the US isn't even the world's #1 economy any more, the EU is).
You should ask yourself why the EU is the main driving force behind Kyoto. Maybe because they found out Kyoto would actually be a boon to their economy?
France does.
:(
And we managed to elect Mr Chirac not only once, but twice!
We are talking about democracy, or the lack thereof, in the EU. The problem here is that democracy means the majority sets the agenda. And if the majority does not care, you can as well just forget it.
Face it, geeks are but a tiny minority. We're just small change. We don't matter.
[i]All it is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing[/i]. Or for most people to not care. Hell, even most decision makers don't have a clue.
Enough of this "democratic deficit" BS! The Commission is appointed by the national head of states, has to win the confidence vote of the Parliament and can be overthrown by the Parliament in a no-confidence vote, just as your own national government!
As for the Council, it is composed by national ministers. I fail to see how it is different from what happens in your national capital.
To put it in a nutshell, the EU's executive is no less democratic than your national government. If you are OK with your national government but complain about the EU's lack of democracy and unaccountability, I suggest you apply for immigration to a really "democratic" country like Russia or China immediately.
On the other hand, the fact that lobbies and their puppets tried to submarine the issue at a meeting about a totally different topic (namely agriculture), or the fact that some ministers change their vote once they arrive in Brussels is indeed outrageous. But this has hardly anything to do with the corruption of the European Union as an institution, and everything to do with the corruption of national politicians.
Don't worry, Microsoft has that covered... when Longhorn (eventually) comes out!
This position reminds me of how once-quality consumer electronics companies like Sony found out they had to start producing crap that breaks down quickly, or else people would wait like 15 years before purchasing their products again.
Please someone tell me why Hollywood is allowed to put a Ferrari into a movie (even though the driver is the villain), but you can't put a Ferrari into a video game if you're not EA.
I'm frustrated that we can't have real car names in GTA, that we can't get Porsches or Ferraris in Gran Turismo 4, that you could not drive Ferraris or Mercedeses in pursuit mode in earlier versions of Need for Speed because "it'd hurt the company's image to run away from cops", or that game makers are not allowed to implement car damage because of a handful picky car manufacturers.
This is so ridiculous that you have to drive a Ruf (a Porsche tuner) instead of a genuine Porsche in GT3/4 because EA holds exclusive rights on Porsche cars in video games (but is not using it, as ricers are all the rage at the moment).
Simulations are supposed to, duh, simulate reality. So how an Earth what is possible on a video DVD what is not possible on game DVD? Can you imagine Fox barring Dreamworks from using BMW's because Fox owns exclusive rights to the BMW license? That's utter nonsense.
By the way, the Porsche/Ferrari policy also makes little sense as far as the bottom line is concerned. Games are free advertising. If your game is not in a game, you're losing sales to more lenient competitors.
Exhibit A: Gran Turismo made a star of the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. Before GT3's success, nobody had heard of this car in the US. But so many asked DaimlerChrysler for EVOs that they eventually decided to import it.
Disclaimer: I'm working at one of the abovementioned companies, and I'm ashamed they still don't get it. I for one hope NCSoft wins, and that game makers are allowed to put in whatever content they wish.
We all know most politicians only remember their constituents 6 months before elections. I agree that they are doing a terrible job as representatives of the people.
The trouble is that they're also terrible representatives of business interests. As you mentioned, such short-sighted legislation is only pushing America further into technological irrelevance.
I guess you have never heard of the late 70's, have you?
On the other hand, it's true that smaller variations are "dampened" by hedging. Every large company is hedging against a rise in crude prices, but only those directly concerned hedge against for instance a rise in coffee prices.
On the other hand, hedging won't save you if there is a sudden paradigm shift (e.g. Iran revolution), or if the long-term trend is up because demand grows faster than supply (e.g. "Peak Oil").
Indeed. The Airport Extreme card is a regular Airport Extreme card, but you ALSO need an adapter - which is not available separately for the time being.
(From http://www.macnews.de/news/57984 (German))
First of all, P2P will be required. When the #1 online music store is barely breaking even at $0.99 a pop, imagine the profitability when you have to upload 500 MB instead of 5 but can only sell for $19.99 a pop...
;p
The bottom line is that the **AA have to write off 10% of their customer base if they ever want to keep the remaining 90%.
Every network basically relies on core nodes, and leeches. 10% of all players are typically the source for 90% of the trafic. The other 90% depend on those 10%. (Disclaimer: made up numbers of course, but you all know the 10/90 or 20/80 drill)
This is especially true given the asymetric nature of today's broadband connections. In a pure P2P network, your average download speed will be your average upload speed, which is a waste of downward bandwidth. Or, if you want to get that movie in 30 minutes, you basically have to upload the rest of the day.
While 10% of the user base has no problem with uploading all day long, the average Jane won't do that.
If you can remove core nodes from the equation, then you win. The **AA are trying to do so with lawsuits, but it won't fly. The more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers... onto better networks.
The **AA cannot beat P2P. What they can do however, is join it.
Basically all they have to do is to start a system where consumers pay for downloading, but get paid for uploading (of course at a lower rate than consumers pay for downloads). Do that, and you can be sure the top 10% will remain on your network and not "leak" official releases on illegal networks. After all, every time someone is downloading a movie that you uploaded to an illegal network, you're losing a sale.
With the top 10% away from illegal networks, download rates and availability of new content will suck major time on them. So, the remaining 90% will have little choice but come onto a legal network and fork over those $19.99.
It will also attract ISPs to their side. Right now, ISPs are pushing for more widespread piracy, because piracy is what is pushing broadband. Instant, unlimited entertainment to the home is the killer app of DSL, we all know this, and so do ISPs. Earlier this year, for instance, the state telecom company in Germany launched a barrage of ads pushing just that, without mentioning where it'd come from (obviously from illegal sources) - just as another arm of the state was starting to prosecute major uploaders...
But remember, ADSL connections are asymetric. Who will be very happy to be paid to step in and fill the void? Bingo, ISPs.
Of course, something tells me they won't do that, because they seem to care more about control than about money.
You're spewing off complete nonsense.
If demand rises faster than supply, then prices rise. If prices rise, then currently unprofitable reserves become profitable, and production rises.
On the other hand, if this production increase makes supply grow faster than demand, then prices will go down, until a new equilibrium is reached.
However, prices cannot drop lower than production costs, which are currently too high to be profitable. It thus follows that the new equilibrium has to be higher than the current one.
If prices were to be lower in the future, it'd mean that untapped reserves would actually be cheaper to drill than current oil fields. So, if those untapped reserves were already profitable at current prices, why aren't they being tapped? The very fact that they are not (in spite of the growing demand) proves you wrong.
By the way I have a newsflash for you: offshore drilling is fiendishly expensive. Even if new offshore oil fields do manage to keep oil flowing, do not count on it to lower crude prices.
The 2003-2004 oid shock is not only about the Iraq war. It also has a lot to do with long-term phenomena such as the awareness that demand might be growing faster than supply (the dreaded Peak Oil - whether it has already happened or not is not the point, the point is that is WILL happen), and the depreciation of the dollar.
(Since sheiks can buy less per barrel sold, they'll raise oil prices to make up for the loss of purchasing power, just as in 1973).
You're in for a nasty surprise, my friend. Never, ever underestimate the power of demographics. Stock markets have only risen over time because there has been more demand than offer - because there has been been more people around 40 investing for their retirements, than people past 65 liquidating their pension plan.
This wasn't always the case, though. In the 50's and 60's, stocks notably underperformed (vs other investments) although the economy was doing pretty good. At the very same time, there were only few 40 year-olds, because so many had died during WW2. Stock markets only started skyrocketing in the 80's - at the same time, there were few 65 year-olds (WW2 generation) and many 40 year-olds (boomers).
If the demographics-as-fundamental-economic-force theory is to be trusted, we'll enter a 20-year downward period in about 5 years.
We'll see whether oil will be cheaper than it is today - but in your shoes, I'd be stockpiling European oil and nuclear stocks (e.g. Total or Areva) right now. [/OT].
Huh? I didn't know Halliburton even cared about astroturfing on slashdot!
I never said oil supplies were going to run out within a decade. I merely said that that prices were going to rise enough to make small planes unprofitable.
I am aware that as prices rise, more drilling sites will become profitable. But the fact that rising prices increase viable reserves does not change the fact that they did rise in the first place!
Nonsense. You do know the amount of oil on this planet is determined by geology, not economics, right?
What economics tell you is merely that oil will never "run out", but that once it gets rare enough, it will be so expensive that nobody will be using it anyway. So yes, economics will keep supplies at a sufficient level for centuries, but definitely NOT cheap.
This is the case because oil is still relatively cheap. Expect this to change in the future.
;p) is heavily used for short-range flights... in Japan. I'm talking direct flights here. It's just that the land is crowded enough that there are very few landing spots, but many many passengers.
Btw the high-density 747 (think 600 people that do not seem to care about knee injuries
Expect the same to happen in China or India, but with the A380. Especially since their rail network sucks (unlike in Japan).
Why?
The user "Roland Piquepaille" is a troll just like you...
The "real" Roland Piquepaille is actually rpiquepa.
IRAs are a scam.
We're hearing that goold old SS is failing because of demographics - ie that employed people will be unable to pay for pensioners because there too many pensioners for too few employed people.
The sad truth, however, is that the very same reason that is killing SS, will kill stock markets. We often hear the myth that stock markets outperform other investments on the long term.
The truth is, stock markets can only rise if there are more people willing to buy, than people willing to sell, i.e. if there are more 40-year-olds than 65-year-olds.
Think about it: Stock markets rise because demand is growing faster than offer.
But who is usually buying stock? People saving up for their retirement. So they buy stocks (or shares in mutual funds, which then buy stocks).
What is usually selling stock? Retired people - that are selling to finance their retirement.
In other words, if the ratio of retired people to employed people increases, offer grows faster than demand. Markets tank.
And this, ladies and gentlement, is the reason the market will be bearish for at least two decades once boomers hit 65 (that is in merely 5 years).
Remember the boom years of the 50's and 60's, during which stock markets notably underperformed?
No wonder demand was weak, if there were fewer 40-year-olds than usual, since so many had died 20 years ago during WW2.
The stock market only got real big under Reagan. Surprise, this is exactly when the first boomers reached 40 year olds, whilst there were very few sellers (WW2 generation): demand was much stronger than offer. Markets rose, and kept rising until today.
However in 5 years, there will be more people wanting to sell than people willing to buy. In other words, IRAs are a disaster waiting to happen.
The only way out is if the Chinese come in and do a massive buy out, 80's Japan style.
To be honest, as long as the renminbi remains pegged to the dollar, as long as the Japanese Central Bank is buying dollars to slow the rise of the yen vs the renminbi, and as long as European companies are forced to cut into their margins to remain competitive vs the Japanese*, then American consumers won't see too big of an increase.
Oh wait, they are already. OIL PRICES.
Remember, the 1973 oil shock wasn't only in retaliation to Western support for Israel in the Kippur War, but also to make up for the loss of purchasing power since the mid 60's.
I am convinced the recent rise in oil prices is linked to the depreciation of the dollar, and not only to Chinese growth increasing demand faster than reserves are discovered, or insecurity in Russia or the Middle East.
If I remember correctly, since Nov. 2000 the euro's appreciation has more or less matched oil's ($.85 to $1.35, vs $30 to $50 : +60% in both cases).
When arab investors became persona non grata in America after 9/11, petrodollars started getting increasingly invested in Europe (or in China), which fuels the euro's rise over the dollar. The resulting fall of the dollar makes the Arabs painfully aware of the loss of purchasing power they're getting (since they're getting fewer euros per barrel), so they have to improve their prices.
Oh yeah, and they convert their dollars into euros event faster.
So far, American consumers have been protected from the effects of the dollar's depreciation by external factors. However, if China has to increase its prices because of the increase in oil prices, if the Federal Reserve has to increase interest rates, if Japan stops being able to buy those T-bills, or if OPEC suddenly starts demanding payment in euros, American households will feel the heat. Or even be wiped out.
* I'm working at a small German sports car manufacturer. We're selling our entry-level model at a loss in the US because we're supposed to be 20% more expensive than a Nissan 350 Z, but we cannot afford to be twice as expensive...
Total collapse of the US economy.
;p) so I might have missed it, but they do not seem to see Judgment Day coming.
OK, I could only read the executive summary (will the FBI send michael to Gitmo for orchestrating a DDoS attack on a government website?
As Cheney said: Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Well Richard, it is too early to say. Wait until you have to repay those 30 year T-bonds.
Reagan started the policy of voluntary massive deficits. That deficit has to be paid back 30 years later.
Given how the current administration is unable to pay only interest without running a skyhigh deficit (in other words, borrowing again to be able to pay interests!), I don't expect it to be able to pay back the capital...
And if I count right, 1981 + 30 = 2011. Expect the US to default on its debt by 2015. There is no way the US governement can afford to use half its budget to pay back its debts.
Too big to fail? Hell, France defaulted several times under Louis XIV, although the debt was in French currency, and although France was the leading world power at the time.
After Louis XIV's never-ending wars and corruption ruined France, England had free reign to achieve total world domination during the XVIIIth century.
20mb/s down, 1mb/s up, free VOIP and cable TV for EUR 29.99 (incl. VAT).
:(
Over ADSL. Your point was?
Oh wait, you only have to surrender to the French first!
I'd say this is more about improving access to customers. Remember, this is an industry that has to cope with moral stigma. An industry that the so-called "moral majority" wants to censor.
;p
The porn industry faces an uphill battle when it comes to distribution, and is unhappy about this. The mainstream movie industry only cares about keeping the level of control it currently enjoys.
No wonder Hollywood is scared to death of p2p, but San Fernando lives with it.
Porn embraced video tapes because customers felt easier renting a small package at the video store (especially if you can conceal it between a couple mainstream movies), rather than standing in line at a porn cinema or sex shop. After all, you can't wrap a brown bag around a cinema.
Porn embraced the Internet because customers didn't even have to face the glare (or winks) of the videostore clerk any more. And also, as it was cheaper to distribute.
No to return on topic, I fail to see what advantage HD-DVD/Blu Ray brings over vanilla DVD, as far as distribution is concerned...