I paid $3.32 for my Sgt Pepper vinyl. How can this ringle nonsense be a better profit margin than the current CD which lists for $18.98? Exactly what are the costs associated with the CD?
- Promotion? None. The album is already is legendary - Production costs? Maybe a nickel. - Copyright costs? The label owns that - Anything else? Doubtful.
FISA is a mechanism to provide judicial oversight of foreign intelligence gathering operations. IMHO not having something like this gives the executive branch a lot more freedom to conduct these activities 'in the dark' so to speak, without the restrictions and checks and balances (however weak) we have today.
A lot of the Bush's administration's recent problems with wiretapping have come from ignoring FISA. If it goes away golly gee who knows WTF will happen.
FISA should be re-enabled, and strengthened so that ignoring it becomes a third rail.
Then explain the demise or radical downsizings and/or retooling of HP Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM Research, Tek Labs, et. al. None of them had "regulated monopolies",
Were any of them comparable to Bell Labs in terms of fundamental work? IBM may have been the closest, and they were also the closest to being a monopoly.
Your posting has so many flaws you should be embarrassed. If legality had nothing to do with how the US treats its people, the Patriot act would not have been necessary, nor would there be any judge capable of reviewing it in any way.
If you are going to do something like that you really need to pick a moving vehicle. A good choice would be an airplane, or a bus, or the local magistrate's car.
I thought there was a limit of $50 refunded for fraud?
Other way around. The max limit of personal liability for credit card fraud is $50. All major credit cards today have a 0 limit.
Bank fraud limits are more dicey - your liability is capped at $500 IF you report it within 60 days. After that it may be tougher to recover the loss. Debit cards are not covered the same way as credit cards.
Most identity thieves work by opening new credit in your name and using up the credit. They can get much more money that way than by draining a checking account of a few thousand dollars.
If you live in a state with identity theft protection laws you can put a freeze on your credit information. This is very effective in stopping the major modes of identity theft.
Bell Labs was the result of a large regulated monopoly running the national phone system having so much money it was an embarrassment. While Bell Labs did lots of absolutely stunning R&D, there were plenty of other side effects to the economy that were bad as a result of having this monopoly control a critical part of the economy. One of these effects that we are suffering from even today is that the oligopolies that were the result of the Bell breakup are actively hindering the growth of communications technologies in the US - broadband, VoIP (and public ENUM), metro WiFi, and portable cellular.
New milennium (sic) capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.
There is nothing, NOTHING new to that process. It has been going on for at least 5 millennia.
So don't blame the white night sky on all the street lights - take a drive out of the city and look up, chances are that you'll still see nothing.
That is not my experience at all. I used to live in a pretty sparsely populated part of upstate NY, and whenever the weather was not cloudy the seeing was very nice. Now I live in metro NYC and many of the people I know have never seen the Milky Way and my telescope sits in my closet.
That's utopianism. In the real world, no regulations means you get to give your lunch money to the biggest bully, because there's no checks in place preventing the bullying.
The libertarian view is that government regulations put in place to check monopolies normally have exactly the opposite effect; these regulations hinder competition and cause more harm than good. Government action in the market is the ultimate monopoly, and by dispensing with it you will be much better off.
In fact what generally happens in a regulated environment is that those regulated will work to bend the regulations to their favor and use those regulations to exclude competition. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH ISPs.
The answer is not going to ever be slathering on another layer of regulation. All that will do is further present opportunities those being regulated to twist the new regulations to their advantage.
Thinking that government can prevent monopolies from forming is silly. Exactly the opposite is true. Government enables the formation of monopolies far more often than it prevents monopolies by establishing regulations that favor one company over another. And once the monopolies are formed it does nothing to address the root cause of the existence of the monopoly.
In a market that is free of constraints (unlike the current ISP regulatory environment) bullying is impossible. Those that might be subject to such bullying would be free to establish or use an alternative.
The concept is important in understanding the dynamics of economic growth. Yes, oligarchies and monopolies often arise in a free market. But these are not the result of government intervention but rather economic advantage leading to better service and prices. There is an important difference. The 19th century was the heyday of economic libertarianism, and some large monopolies emerged, as is taught widely. What is not often taught at the same time is that this period in our economy also brought about the fall of many large monopolies as well - many more than were actually formed.
All information is constrained by relativistic laws. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer information under currently understood laws of physics.
Your suggestion brings up the subject of the Hawking Paradox, which is a thermodynamic problem involving the destruction of information in a black hole. There are some competing theories regarding this, one of which is that black holes don't truly exist.
A libertarian should support network neutrality because the minimal government intervention necessary to enforce the rules is required for capitalism to function. Libertarianism without this principle devolves into a corporate oligarchy.
A libertarian would do no such thing. Enforcing net neutrality laws in fact supports entrenched economic rights (i.e. de jure monopolies) rather allowing a free market system to work. Maybe people actually WANT a non-neutral system. They should be allowed to choose it if that is what they want. A libertarian would work to remove the regulatory barriers that give incumbent ISPs an economic advantage. With a proliferation of ISPs there would be a choice of carriers to use, and people would pick the service model they want.
This link illustrates the principle as applied to another famous monopoly.
The real advantage of this technique is that it allows measurement of a larger size sample. There is still an injection of the florescent label, but by scanning the body surface a much larger blood sample can be monitored which makes this method more sensitive - making detection at an early stage better.
It is rather surprising, but life terms for judges actually works much like the founders intended. Once these guys are appointed they are not beholden to their appointers and often start thinking outside the box. Someone who has been on the Supreme Court for 10-20 years may have rather different opinions than when he was first selected, and of course legislative oversight works to keep the most dogmatic and radical judges out of these positions.
Well, this is pretty straightforward. Microsoft trying to corrupt a standards body. I wonder how many times they have done this before, just a bit less blatantly so they didn't get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
This sort of malfeasance should make all other industry organizations like the OSF be very reluctant to accept anything from Microsoft at face value (if they were so inclined).
Hopefully more people will realize how flat out EVIL that company is because of this.
But in end that makes the results worthless. The universe does not make itself easy in order to accommodate those who live in it. Progress comes from the long and hard work needed to wrest the subtle secrets from nature's hidden glory.
What people don't realize is that at 1.544mbps, you actually get the full bandwidth and a stable connection.
There is a definite maybe on that one. Many T1 providers oversell their upstream bandwidth in order to keep costs down.
I pay $65 per month for a cable connection that gives me between 25-35 mbps downstream and 4-5 mbps upstream. In the last year it was up 100% except for a 1/2 hour during a power outage. That is 20x the downstream speed of a T1, at 1/10th the cost. I cannot imagine why anyone would want a T1 instead.
Slashdot Mirror
reduced functionality was a standard feature in Windows.
Exactly. Who is going to be able to tell the difference?
I paid $3.32 for my Sgt Pepper vinyl. How can this ringle nonsense be a better profit margin than the current CD which lists for $18.98? Exactly what are the costs associated with the CD?
- Promotion? None. The album is already is legendary
- Production costs? Maybe a nickel.
- Copyright costs? The label owns that
- Anything else? Doubtful.
FISA is a mechanism to provide judicial oversight of foreign intelligence gathering operations. IMHO not having something like this gives the executive branch a lot more freedom to conduct these activities 'in the dark' so to speak, without the restrictions and checks and balances (however weak) we have today.
A lot of the Bush's administration's recent problems with wiretapping have come from ignoring FISA. If it goes away golly gee who knows WTF will happen.
FISA should be re-enabled, and strengthened so that ignoring it becomes a third rail.
Then explain the demise or radical downsizings and/or retooling of HP Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM Research, Tek Labs, et. al. None of them had "regulated monopolies",
Were any of them comparable to Bell Labs in terms of fundamental work? IBM may have been the closest, and they were also the closest to being a monopoly.
Not to mention the phone companies buying up the internet.
1. Innovate
2. Build and Market
3. Sellout to the Oligopoly
4. Party Like a Billionaire
Your posting has so many flaws you should be embarrassed. If legality had nothing to do with how the US treats its people, the Patriot act would not have been necessary, nor would there be any judge capable of reviewing it in any way.
If you are going to do something like that you really need to pick a moving vehicle. A good choice would be an airplane, or a bus, or the local magistrate's car.
I thought there was a limit of $50 refunded for fraud?
Other way around. The max limit of personal liability for credit card fraud is $50. All major credit cards today have a 0 limit.
Bank fraud limits are more dicey - your liability is capped at $500 IF you report it within 60 days. After that it may be tougher to recover the loss. Debit cards are not covered the same way as credit cards.
Most identity thieves work by opening new credit in your name and using up the credit. They can get much more money that way than by draining a checking account of a few thousand dollars.
If you live in a state with identity theft protection laws you can put a freeze on your credit information. This is very effective in stopping the major modes of identity theft.
Bell Labs was the result of a large regulated monopoly running the national phone system having so much money it was an embarrassment. While Bell Labs did lots of absolutely stunning R&D, there were plenty of other side effects to the economy that were bad as a result of having this monopoly control a critical part of the economy. One of these effects that we are suffering from even today is that the oligopolies that were the result of the Bell breakup are actively hindering the growth of communications technologies in the US - broadband, VoIP (and public ENUM), metro WiFi, and portable cellular.
New milennium (sic) capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.
There is nothing, NOTHING new to that process. It has been going on for at least 5 millennia.
So don't blame the white night sky on all the street lights - take a drive out of the city and look up, chances are that you'll still see nothing.
That is not my experience at all. I used to live in a pretty sparsely populated part of upstate NY, and whenever the weather was not cloudy the seeing was very nice. Now I live in metro NYC and many of the people I know have never seen the Milky Way and my telescope sits in my closet.
It's been that way for a long time. See "The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant" circa 1800 BC
For TMI owners (GPU) and its stockholders it sure was a disaster.
You do realize that your small local ISP is their buying connectivity from AT&T or Qwest or whatever?
That's utopianism. In the real world, no regulations means you get to give your lunch money to the biggest bully, because there's no checks in place preventing the bullying.
The libertarian view is that government regulations put in place to check monopolies normally have exactly the opposite effect; these regulations hinder competition and cause more harm than good. Government action in the market is the ultimate monopoly, and by dispensing with it you will be much better off.
In fact what generally happens in a regulated environment is that those regulated will work to bend the regulations to their favor and use those regulations to exclude competition. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH ISPs.
The answer is not going to ever be slathering on another layer of regulation. All that will do is further present opportunities those being regulated to twist the new regulations to their advantage.
Thinking that government can prevent monopolies from forming is silly. Exactly the opposite is true. Government enables the formation of monopolies far more often than it prevents monopolies by establishing regulations that favor one company over another. And once the monopolies are formed it does nothing to address the root cause of the existence of the monopoly.
In a market that is free of constraints (unlike the current ISP regulatory environment) bullying is impossible. Those that might be subject to such bullying would be free to establish or use an alternative.
The concept is important in understanding the dynamics of economic growth. Yes, oligarchies and monopolies often arise in a free market. But these are not the result of government intervention but rather economic advantage leading to better service and prices. There is an important difference. The 19th century was the heyday of economic libertarianism, and some large monopolies emerged, as is taught widely. What is not often taught at the same time is that this period in our economy also brought about the fall of many large monopolies as well - many more than were actually formed.
All information is constrained by relativistic laws. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer information under currently understood laws of physics.
Your suggestion brings up the subject of the Hawking Paradox, which is a thermodynamic problem involving the destruction of information in a black hole. There are some competing theories regarding this, one of which is that black holes don't truly exist.
A libertarian should support network neutrality because the minimal government intervention necessary to enforce the rules is required for capitalism to function. Libertarianism without this principle devolves into a corporate oligarchy.
A libertarian would do no such thing. Enforcing net neutrality laws in fact supports entrenched economic rights (i.e. de jure monopolies) rather allowing a free market system to work. Maybe people actually WANT a non-neutral system. They should be allowed to choose it if that is what they want. A libertarian would work to remove the regulatory barriers that give incumbent ISPs an economic advantage. With a proliferation of ISPs there would be a choice of carriers to use, and people would pick the service model they want.
This link illustrates the principle as applied to another famous monopoly.
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/microsoft_monopoly.
The real advantage of this technique is that it allows measurement of a larger size sample. There is still an injection of the florescent label, but by scanning the body surface a much larger blood sample can be monitored which makes this method more sensitive - making detection at an early stage better.
Maybe he is a jerk, or maybe he is a hero. What do you think Thoreau would say?
This guy has a big payday coming soon - open and shut case of false arrest and police harassment. Circuit City looks doomed too.
It is rather surprising, but life terms for judges actually works much like the founders intended. Once these guys are appointed they are not beholden to their appointers and often start thinking outside the box. Someone who has been on the Supreme Court for 10-20 years may have rather different opinions than when he was first selected, and of course legislative oversight works to keep the most dogmatic and radical judges out of these positions.
Unfortunately Bungie was swallowed by the whale and we don't get good Mac games from them any more.
Well, this is pretty straightforward. Microsoft trying to corrupt a standards body. I wonder how many times they have done this before, just a bit less blatantly so they didn't get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
This sort of malfeasance should make all other industry organizations like the OSF be very reluctant to accept anything from Microsoft at face value (if they were so inclined).
Hopefully more people will realize how flat out EVIL that company is because of this.
But in end that makes the results worthless. The universe does not make itself easy in order to accommodate those who live in it. Progress comes from the long and hard work needed to wrest the subtle secrets from nature's hidden glory.
What people don't realize is that at 1.544mbps, you actually get the full bandwidth and a stable connection.
There is a definite maybe on that one. Many T1 providers oversell their upstream bandwidth in order to keep costs down.
I pay $65 per month for a cable connection that gives me between 25-35 mbps downstream and 4-5 mbps upstream. In the last year it was up 100% except for a 1/2 hour during a power outage. That is 20x the downstream speed of a T1, at 1/10th the cost. I cannot imagine why anyone would want a T1 instead.
The old methods of calculating margin really don't work when applied to a technology company because so much of the cost is R&D.