1. Around 2/3 of the country have landline phones. 2. Polls take non-landline owners into account. Typically, around 1/3 of respondents for most polls are on cellphones.
Very similar polling methodologies were very accurate for the 2014 midterms.
Capturing a small spread is the same thing, market-wise, as charging a percentage commission. The broker is charging for a convenience, rather than speculating on being able to sell out whole venues at a cushy markup.
The broker is still taking a risk by buying tickets at face, and expecting to be able to sell them at more than face. This isn't a situation where you match up a buyer and a seller and take a percentage (like StubHub, or Ebay). The broker actually owns inventory.
The Arizona ticket market is living proof that your "twirly-mustached speculators will buy up all the tickets and charge us a fortune" scenario just doesn't happen.
Pretty sure I never referred to anybody in anything like those terms. Also, ticket brokering/reselling is totally legal in large swathes of the country, not just Arizona, and I fundamentally am firmly in favor of it. If acts decide to underprice their tickets, they're of course free to do so, but that will naturally create a secondary market.
What we really wish for here is that we had the jurisdiction to apply this principle to airline tickets. If we simply made all those nonrefundable tickets transferable, airlines wouldn't have to judge tales of woe about medical problems, and sales could still be final. If you couldn't use a ticket for any reason, you could give to a relative or sell it on eBay.
Airlines are free to offer this, but aren't required to do so, just as venues aren't required to honor tickets that have been resold. A venue could easily state that tickets are only usable by the person who purchased them, and ID will be required at the door. They don't, for a number of reasons, but there's nothing saying they couldn't.
Why do you create an artificial distinction between purchase and commission?
If a ticket broker buys a ticket for $100, he's betting that he'll be able to sell it for enough >$100 to cover his costs and make a profit. Whether he calls that "commission" or "markup," it's all the same thing. Ticket brokers (and by that I mean people who actual own inventory, not a site like Stubhub) make their money buying tickets and then reselling them, capturing the spread.
Remember, a big part of Ticketmaster's business model has always been acting as the designated "bad guy," to let talent pretend that they're all about the fans, it's those nasty Ticketmaster people who are screwing them over. For example, the vast majority of the "fees" that Ticketmaster imposes are actually paid right back to the band. It lets the band pretend that "we're only charging $50 for your ticket, it's Ticketmaster that's adding that extra $20."
If ticket resellers consistently made money on speculative purchase of tickets, rather than on resale fees and commissions, the event operators are just as consistently underpricing their events.
In the real world, this just doesn't happen.
That's exactly what does happen. Bands don't want to be seen as "gouging" their "real fans," so they set artificially low ticket prices, well below what people are actually willing to pay, creating an opportunity for scalpers.
That's exactly what they're doing. Since NYC has a very well established set of infrastructure for handling so-called black car services (and a lot fewer lower-income people who happen to own cars), Uber decided to just fit themselves into that.
If you want dispatching, you call a "car service" that costs less than the cab.
You mean more than the cab. Black car services are more expensive than regular taxis.
The reality is that before cell phones and smart phones dispatched cars were just vastly inferior and so weren't that numerous.
The services were vastly superior to cabs (Town Cars vs. cramped taxis, better drivers, no partitions, etc.), but they did require that you called a car service, so there was more of a lead time.
Yes, definitely, including the other information (SS#, DL#, etc.) was a massive screwup, but that wasn't supposed to happen. From the article, sounds like someone, in effect, forgot to delete some columns from Excel.
The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers.
Except, in NYC, the low-cost tier (Uber X) IS licensed as limos, with drivers with Taxi and Limo Commission licenses, and vehicles with the special TLC plates. The only difference between Uber X and Uber Black in NYC is that Uber Black has nicer cars (think Escalades vs. Camrys). This is a big difference between NYC and the rest of the country. NYC doesn't have the "Bob and his Chevy working for a couple hours driving people around" aspect.
The voter roll is a matter of public record in pretty much every state, and for very good reason - if it's not public, there's no way for the public to cross check to make sure that someone in government hasn't been adding people who don't exist. Like a lot of public data, it's available to anyone who wants it, so long as they cover the cost of providing the data. Sounds like these 12 organizations have, in effect, a subscription.
In pretty much every state, the voter roll is a matter of public record. Lots of good reasons for it to be, otherwise there's no way for the public to check whether a few thousand extra folks have been added to subtracted here and there.
Even if there's zero improvement in compression by the time 8K rolls around, it'll take around 30Mbps. So, unless you have 170 TVs in your home, 5Gbps is going to be overkill.
Pretty much everyone in the Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or Charter footprints (about 2/3 of the US, combined) can get at least 100Mbps, if they want it. Charter doesn't even sell anything below 60Mbps anymore, and Comcast and TWC's standard package is now 50Mbps.
The competitive issue is the much lower speeds that most telcos offer.
Also, the backbone isn't the issue, it's the last mile.
iOS spikes higher in 4Q because Apple typically releases the new iPhone in late 3Q/early 4Q, so there's a lot of seasonality to the sales. Android devices, on the other hand, are more evenly spread through the year.
Two phones, one unlimited, one not. Transfer the upgrade from the unlimited phone to the non-unlimited, then upgrade the phone. Unlimited phone's upgrade is used, contract's locked in for another two years. Plus, iPhone 6s for $280.
It is ironic that a candidate whose campaign is based on denying others the ability to speak is complaining that he is being denied the ability to speak.
"It's already occurring due to historical data that showed that men under 25 were the most dangerous drivers, where I live that data lead to ~$900-1200/year initial premiums for young women and $2,500-3500 initial premiums for young men. It can be a serious impediment when your cost of employment for any job requiring a car (either on the job or just to get there) is 4 times hire than someone else with the same driving history as yourself. The sad part is, where I live anyway, the data that all that was based on was from a generation that grew up with drinking and driving, very little driver education, significantly lower safety standards, etc. Looking at only data from the 2000s onward, men under 25 were among the safest drivers on the road and paying among the highest premiums."
That would seem to create a huge opportunity for an insurance carrier to start charging $2000 for young men (vs. 2500-3500) and make a killing. There are large numbers of very smart people working at insurers trying to take advantage of inefficiencies in the market, and I'd be very surprised that, if there were such clear evidence that young men aren't actually that risky, some insurer hasn't taken advantage of that by moderately discounting to target that market.
2) I had a girlfriend driving in stop-and-go traffic on a rural street, light turns green, but the second we cleared the intersection traffic slowed again, and the driver behind us didn't notice. She crept forward close to the service truck in front of us to try to give a little more space, but to no avail, the driver behind us hit us anyways, and pushed us into the truck. The driver who hit us paid for our damage, but my girlfriend was at fault for hitting the truck... "Why" you ask??? Because the space in front of you is the safety buffer to prevent multiple car accidents when there doesn't need to be.
Interesting, because my personal experience is the exact opposite. On the highway, incident ahead, driver in front of me brakes sharply, I do too. He stops in time, I stop in time, guy behind me doesn't, hits me, and pushes me into the car in front of me. Driver behind me was liable for the damage to my vehicle AND the vehicle in front of me. Certainly helped that the driver in front of me testified that I had come to a full stop before I was pushed forward, hitting his car.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Around 2/3 of the country have landline phones.
2. Polls take non-landline owners into account. Typically, around 1/3 of respondents for most polls are on cellphones.
Very similar polling methodologies were very accurate for the 2014 midterms.
Capturing a small spread is the same thing, market-wise, as charging a percentage commission. The broker is charging for a convenience, rather than speculating on being able to sell out whole venues at a cushy markup.
The broker is still taking a risk by buying tickets at face, and expecting to be able to sell them at more than face. This isn't a situation where you match up a buyer and a seller and take a percentage (like StubHub, or Ebay). The broker actually owns inventory.
The Arizona ticket market is living proof that your "twirly-mustached speculators will buy up all the tickets and charge us a fortune" scenario just doesn't happen.
Pretty sure I never referred to anybody in anything like those terms. Also, ticket brokering/reselling is totally legal in large swathes of the country, not just Arizona, and I fundamentally am firmly in favor of it. If acts decide to underprice their tickets, they're of course free to do so, but that will naturally create a secondary market.
What we really wish for here is that we had the jurisdiction to apply this principle to airline tickets. If we simply made all those nonrefundable tickets transferable, airlines wouldn't have to judge tales of woe about medical problems, and sales could still be final. If you couldn't use a ticket for any reason, you could give to a relative or sell it on eBay.
Airlines are free to offer this, but aren't required to do so, just as venues aren't required to honor tickets that have been resold. A venue could easily state that tickets are only usable by the person who purchased them, and ID will be required at the door. They don't, for a number of reasons, but there's nothing saying they couldn't.
Why do you create an artificial distinction between purchase and commission?
If a ticket broker buys a ticket for $100, he's betting that he'll be able to sell it for enough >$100 to cover his costs and make a profit. Whether he calls that "commission" or "markup," it's all the same thing. Ticket brokers (and by that I mean people who actual own inventory, not a site like Stubhub) make their money buying tickets and then reselling them, capturing the spread.
Remember, a big part of Ticketmaster's business model has always been acting as the designated "bad guy," to let talent pretend that they're all about the fans, it's those nasty Ticketmaster people who are screwing them over. For example, the vast majority of the "fees" that Ticketmaster imposes are actually paid right back to the band. It lets the band pretend that "we're only charging $50 for your ticket, it's Ticketmaster that's adding that extra $20."
If ticket resellers consistently made money on speculative purchase of tickets, rather than on resale fees and commissions, the event operators are just as consistently underpricing their events.
In the real world, this just doesn't happen.
That's exactly what does happen. Bands don't want to be seen as "gouging" their "real fans," so they set artificially low ticket prices, well below what people are actually willing to pay, creating an opportunity for scalpers.
That's exactly what they're doing. Since NYC has a very well established set of infrastructure for handling so-called black car services (and a lot fewer lower-income people who happen to own cars), Uber decided to just fit themselves into that.
Uber doesn't fix a price in advance, they bill by the minute and the mile, just like the cabs do.
If you want dispatching, you call a "car service" that costs less than the cab.
You mean more than the cab. Black car services are more expensive than regular taxis.
The reality is that before cell phones and smart phones dispatched cars were just vastly inferior and so weren't that numerous.
The services were vastly superior to cabs (Town Cars vs. cramped taxis, better drivers, no partitions, etc.), but they did require that you called a car service, so there was more of a lead time.
Yes, definitely, including the other information (SS#, DL#, etc.) was a massive screwup, but that wasn't supposed to happen. From the article, sounds like someone, in effect, forgot to delete some columns from Excel.
My wife, while in grad school for her History PhD, once went to see A Knight's Tale with a bunch of Medievalists. It did not go well.
The complaints are about the low-cost tiers which are essentially the same thing as Lyft. Unlicensed individuals selling rides for hire through Uber as a booking agent. The drivers and vehicles aren't licensed as limos or taxis, and the cars don't have the special plates or stickers.
Except, in NYC, the low-cost tier (Uber X) IS licensed as limos, with drivers with Taxi and Limo Commission licenses, and vehicles with the special TLC plates. The only difference between Uber X and Uber Black in NYC is that Uber Black has nicer cars (think Escalades vs. Camrys). This is a big difference between NYC and the rest of the country. NYC doesn't have the "Bob and his Chevy working for a couple hours driving people around" aspect.
The voter roll is a matter of public record in pretty much every state, and for very good reason - if it's not public, there's no way for the public to cross check to make sure that someone in government hasn't been adding people who don't exist. Like a lot of public data, it's available to anyone who wants it, so long as they cover the cost of providing the data. Sounds like these 12 organizations have, in effect, a subscription.
In pretty much every state, the voter roll is a matter of public record. Lots of good reasons for it to be, otherwise there's no way for the public to check whether a few thousand extra folks have been added to subtracted here and there.
Even if there's zero improvement in compression by the time 8K rolls around, it'll take around 30Mbps. So, unless you have 170 TVs in your home, 5Gbps is going to be overkill.
Pretty much everyone in the Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or Charter footprints (about 2/3 of the US, combined) can get at least 100Mbps, if they want it. Charter doesn't even sell anything below 60Mbps anymore, and Comcast and TWC's standard package is now 50Mbps.
The competitive issue is the much lower speeds that most telcos offer.
Also, the backbone isn't the issue, it's the last mile.
iOS spikes higher in 4Q because Apple typically releases the new iPhone in late 3Q/early 4Q, so there's a lot of seasonality to the sales. Android devices, on the other hand, are more evenly spread through the year.
And, more than 1/3 of a year's net salary in the bank... hmm
That means you have about half of a reasonably-sized emergency fund. Not hugely impressive.
Yes but with [b]Moor's law[/b] we'll beat that eventually, just as athletes running faster and faster will eventually exceed the speed of light. ;-)
Assume your best friend is telling the truth about your wife's infidelity without actually confronting her and hearing her side of the story?
Two phones, one unlimited, one not. Transfer the upgrade from the unlimited phone to the non-unlimited, then upgrade the phone. Unlimited phone's upgrade is used, contract's locked in for another two years. Plus, iPhone 6s for $280.
It is ironic that a candidate whose campaign is based on denying others the ability to speak is complaining that he is being denied the ability to speak.
Not true. I have an unlimited plan, and I'm in contract until October 2017.
"It's already occurring due to historical data that showed that men under 25 were the most dangerous drivers, where I live that data lead to ~$900-1200/year initial premiums for young women and $2,500-3500 initial premiums for young men. It can be a serious impediment when your cost of employment for any job requiring a car (either on the job or just to get there) is 4 times hire than someone else with the same driving history as yourself. The sad part is, where I live anyway, the data that all that was based on was from a generation that grew up with drinking and driving, very little driver education, significantly lower safety standards, etc. Looking at only data from the 2000s onward, men under 25 were among the safest drivers on the road and paying among the highest premiums."
That would seem to create a huge opportunity for an insurance carrier to start charging $2000 for young men (vs. 2500-3500) and make a killing. There are large numbers of very smart people working at insurers trying to take advantage of inefficiencies in the market, and I'd be very surprised that, if there were such clear evidence that young men aren't actually that risky, some insurer hasn't taken advantage of that by moderately discounting to target that market.
The big labels are doing fine, with record album sales.
While I agree about the challenges around streaming, pay by the track, and piracy, where are you getting the idea that album sales are at records?
Album sales (including album downloads) are down by nearly 65% from their peak around 2000.
http://blog.thecurrent.org/201...
Aha, got it, now I understand.
2) I had a girlfriend driving in stop-and-go traffic on a rural street, light turns green, but the second we cleared the intersection traffic slowed again, and the driver behind us didn't notice. She crept forward close to the service truck in front of us to try to give a little more space, but to no avail, the driver behind us hit us anyways, and pushed us into the truck. The driver who hit us paid for our damage, but my girlfriend was at fault for hitting the truck... "Why" you ask??? Because the space in front of you is the safety buffer to prevent multiple car accidents when there doesn't need to be.
Interesting, because my personal experience is the exact opposite. On the highway, incident ahead, driver in front of me brakes sharply, I do too. He stops in time, I stop in time, guy behind me doesn't, hits me, and pushes me into the car in front of me. Driver behind me was liable for the damage to my vehicle AND the vehicle in front of me. Certainly helped that the driver in front of me testified that I had come to a full stop before I was pushed forward, hitting his car.