Nope that is not what happened. Store A(Apple), Store B(Amazon), and Store C(Borders, Walmart, and B&N) were getting the same price from Seller D(publishers). Store B and Store C were competing by discounting the books they resold. Seller D(publishers) feared that Store C was about to go out of buisness. Store A agreed not to compete with Store C. Seller D then ordered Store B to stop competing with Store C or they would give all their buisness to Store A. The end result is Store A, B, and C are no longer competing with each other. This resulted in prices going up.
Because you can't show that Amazon gained its market share through dumping. Amazon gained its market share by being first to market with a ereader that you could buy books on. They created the market by converting their physical book customers into ebook customers. They have been loosing market share ever since. From 90% to 60%. Not a single ebook seller went out of buisness under the wholesale model. Several went out of buisness with the Agency model. You could say Amazon killed Borders by dumping. But to do that you would have to ignore the vast history of physical stores that went out of buisness when competing against digital.
They are not claiming that independent authors are conspiring together to set prices. Clearly there is no price fixing going on among indepedents. Books from independents are cheap and sold at several price points. They are saying the publishers conspired together not to compete on price. They are saying Apple assisted them.
They are asking why prices went up from $9.99 to $14.99 uniformly for ebooks sold by publishers after Apple entered the market. New competition is supposed to drive prices down not up. Costs didn't go up. Demand didn't go up. Supply did not go down. Ebooks didn't suddely become longer or increase in quality. The only thing that changed was that the publishers met with Apple and set prices.
They have an issue with it because they can show that prices went up not down. You can't say the contract was pro compitition and then have a uniform price increase amoung all the publishers involved.
How do you enforce this? The amount of work that would be necessary to track down these competitive bids is prohibitive and might not be legal, in some cases. For that matter, why not just run a reverse auction if you suspect better pricing is available?
The agency model is what Apple and the publishers are being sued over. The retailer doesn't have control over price because of the price fixing. Thus you get wierd things like ebooks costing more than discounted physical books. I think physical books will still sometimes cost more than ebooks even if the agency model goes away. At some point physical bookstore need to clear their inventory. They do this by selling unwanted books at cost. Ebook stores don't have inventory issues so they will never offer discounts. Of course no one cares about this. These are unwanted books. People don't like the price difference on best sellers on release day. That problem will be solved.
Ahh but try that and a single Senator can use a stunt called a filibuster. In this stunt the Senator debates the bill forever preventing the bill from being voting on. You need 2/3 majority to tell a Senator to shut up and vote. So acts that only require a simple majority according to the constitution to win get promoted to super majority tests.
It was potentially illegal because Congress was not offically in recess. Republicans have gone out of the way to keep congress out of recess for the the last 3 years using procedural stunts.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is kinda of a joke. Congress created the agency after the wall street crash but put in a provision that the agency could not act untill congress approved the chief of the Bureau. They then proceeded to block appointments to the agency. Thus the agency was in limbo till Jan of this year. Obama appointed someone to head the agency with a potentially illegal recess appointment.
Ahh yes the system is "completely broken." But somehow I get clean water from the tap. The roads are not filled with potholes. We have police and fire service as well. Schools with teachers check. What exactly is completely broken? What doesn't get done that should?
These replicated studies were a cost saving measure. Doing a clinical trial on people is more expensive than doing a preclinical trail on cell cultures. Before committing to the more expensive trail they tried to repeat the research the trial was based on. Over 10 years they did this 53 times and only got positive results 6 times. They then focused their money on those results.
You will have no one to pay for your health care or basic needs. You won't have any retirement savings assuming the collapse makes your money worthless. Those with many children might get 10 to 20 years on you.
Historically everyone who has predicted the end of the world has been wrong. Some guys twice in a row.
That really depends on your definition of end of the world. MIT is not forcasting the end of the world. They are forcasting a large population decline. Those have happened several times in history. (Black Death, Small Pox in New World) Citation needed on them never being predicted. Large economic collapses have also occured in the past.
I think you need to define actual tax base or go into more detail. Becaue currently your arguement amounts to "Nuh Uhh!" I think your twisting the common meaning of regressive to fit your point of view. Like it or not. Regressive tax is about percentage of income.
Ahh but they carefully crafted the legislation so it would only apply to Amazon. You have to do millions in buisness before these laws apply to you. Likely one of the reasons this was tossed.
Your not showing up at the HQ and proving you own a box. Instead your asking the goverment to hire people to go into a mothballed warehouse find your data and then ship it too you. Not quite the same thing. Of course it is the goverments fault the warehouse was mothballed. You were not given notice to get your stuff prior to its closure. Also the data is digital so it is not as hard as physical stuff.
The article linked in the summary fails to provide any evidense or content. Why is the console industry dysfunctional? Not in the article. Instead we get old rumors about the specs for new consoles. Big waste of time and space.
Yes, but the thing is. They would shut down the Mailboxe Etc for the investigation. If they found evidence that employees were involved it might be shut down for a long time.
It is not a flying car because it can't serve the same function as a car. A flying car needs to be able to do things a car can. Such as transport a family of four, groceries, and small packages. Because this can only carry a single person it would be better to describe it as a "Flying bike." If it could carry furniture then you could call it a "Flying truck"
A flying car isn't a car that flies any more than a horseless carrage is a carrage without a horse. The car was a replacement for the horse and buggy. It was better than a horse and buggy because it didn't use a horse. A flying car is a replacement for the car. It is better than a car because it can fly. Point to point transportation in town is needed. A low price is needed. The ability to seat a family and groceries is needed. All of these things a horse and buggy could do that a car could do better. A flying car needs to do those things as well.
Slashdot Mirror
So build some capacity out there. There is a market so take advantage of it.
Stabilize Prices is nice way of saying price fixing.
Nope that is not what happened. Store A(Apple), Store B(Amazon), and Store C(Borders, Walmart, and B&N) were getting the same price from Seller D(publishers). Store B and Store C were competing by discounting the books they resold. Seller D(publishers) feared that Store C was about to go out of buisness. Store A agreed not to compete with Store C. Seller D then ordered Store B to stop competing with Store C or they would give all their buisness to Store A. The end result is Store A, B, and C are no longer competing with each other. This resulted in prices going up.
Because you can't show that Amazon gained its market share through dumping. Amazon gained its market share by being first to market with a ereader that you could buy books on. They created the market by converting their physical book customers into ebook customers. They have been loosing market share ever since. From 90% to 60%. Not a single ebook seller went out of buisness under the wholesale model. Several went out of buisness with the Agency model. You could say Amazon killed Borders by dumping. But to do that you would have to ignore the vast history of physical stores that went out of buisness when competing against digital.
They are not claiming that independent authors are conspiring together to set prices. Clearly there is no price fixing going on among indepedents. Books from independents are cheap and sold at several price points. They are saying the publishers conspired together not to compete on price. They are saying Apple assisted them.
They are asking why prices went up from $9.99 to $14.99 uniformly for ebooks sold by publishers after Apple entered the market. New competition is supposed to drive prices down not up. Costs didn't go up. Demand didn't go up. Supply did not go down. Ebooks didn't suddely become longer or increase in quality. The only thing that changed was that the publishers met with Apple and set prices.
They have an issue with it because they can show that prices went up not down. You can't say the contract was pro compitition and then have a uniform price increase amoung all the publishers involved.
How do you enforce this? The amount of work that would be necessary to track down these competitive bids is prohibitive and might not be legal, in some cases. For that matter, why not just run a reverse auction if you suspect better pricing is available?
The agency model is what Apple and the publishers are being sued over. The retailer doesn't have control over price because of the price fixing. Thus you get wierd things like ebooks costing more than discounted physical books. I think physical books will still sometimes cost more than ebooks even if the agency model goes away. At some point physical bookstore need to clear their inventory. They do this by selling unwanted books at cost. Ebook stores don't have inventory issues so they will never offer discounts. Of course no one cares about this. These are unwanted books. People don't like the price difference on best sellers on release day. That problem will be solved.
Well I can't imagine they have much code to open source. Future prospects for code is not good either. The agency may not exist in 5 years.
Ahh but try that and a single Senator can use a stunt called a filibuster. In this stunt the Senator debates the bill forever preventing the bill from being voting on. You need 2/3 majority to tell a Senator to shut up and vote. So acts that only require a simple majority according to the constitution to win get promoted to super majority tests.
It was potentially illegal because Congress was not offically in recess. Republicans have gone out of the way to keep congress out of recess for the the last 3 years using procedural stunts.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is kinda of a joke. Congress created the agency after the wall street crash but put in a provision that the agency could not act untill congress approved the chief of the Bureau. They then proceeded to block appointments to the agency. Thus the agency was in limbo till Jan of this year. Obama appointed someone to head the agency with a potentially illegal recess appointment.
Ahh yes the system is "completely broken." But somehow I get clean water from the tap. The roads are not filled with potholes. We have police and fire service as well. Schools with teachers check. What exactly is completely broken? What doesn't get done that should?
These replicated studies were a cost saving measure. Doing a clinical trial on people is more expensive than doing a preclinical trail on cell cultures. Before committing to the more expensive trail they tried to repeat the research the trial was based on. Over 10 years they did this 53 times and only got positive results 6 times. They then focused their money on those results.
You will have no one to pay for your health care or basic needs. You won't have any retirement savings assuming the collapse makes your money worthless. Those with many children might get 10 to 20 years on you.
Historically everyone who has predicted the end of the world has been wrong. Some guys twice in a row.
That really depends on your definition of end of the world. MIT is not forcasting the end of the world. They are forcasting a large population decline. Those have happened several times in history. (Black Death, Small Pox in New World) Citation needed on them never being predicted. Large economic collapses have also occured in the past.
I think you need to define actual tax base or go into more detail. Becaue currently your arguement amounts to "Nuh Uhh!" I think your twisting the common meaning of regressive to fit your point of view. Like it or not. Regressive tax is about percentage of income.
Ahh but they carefully crafted the legislation so it would only apply to Amazon. You have to do millions in buisness before these laws apply to you. Likely one of the reasons this was tossed.
Your not showing up at the HQ and proving you own a box. Instead your asking the goverment to hire people to go into a mothballed warehouse find your data and then ship it too you. Not quite the same thing. Of course it is the goverments fault the warehouse was mothballed. You were not given notice to get your stuff prior to its closure. Also the data is digital so it is not as hard as physical stuff.
The article linked in the summary fails to provide any evidense or content. Why is the console industry dysfunctional? Not in the article. Instead we get old rumors about the specs for new consoles. Big waste of time and space.
Yes, but the thing is. They would shut down the Mailboxe Etc for the investigation. If they found evidence that employees were involved it might be shut down for a long time.
It is not a flying car because it can't serve the same function as a car. A flying car needs to be able to do things a car can. Such as transport a family of four, groceries, and small packages. Because this can only carry a single person it would be better to describe it as a "Flying bike." If it could carry furniture then you could call it a "Flying truck"
A flying car isn't a car that flies any more than a horseless carrage is a carrage without a horse. The car was a replacement for the horse and buggy. It was better than a horse and buggy because it didn't use a horse. A flying car is a replacement for the car. It is better than a car because it can fly. Point to point transportation in town is needed. A low price is needed. The ability to seat a family and groceries is needed. All of these things a horse and buggy could do that a car could do better. A flying car needs to do those things as well.
A US court did no such thing. This was a settlement.
Easy Voice Biometrics
If it was based on psuedo-science it would have another name. Something like, Crystal Voice Biometrics, or Sonic Wave Biomagnetics.