It could be applied to auctioning large blocks of hardware. For instance, they could start an auction for 20 GeForce 64MB graphics cards at $400 FOB to be shipped three months from the auction date (of course prices would rise in the auction). Payment would be made at the close of the auction. Offer the option to adjust the shipping date for a fee/credit.
Something like this couldn't realistically be carried out at the retail level, and I doubt it would work at the system level, either, though.
RAM and hard drives might be the best suited for this sort of thing.
I think Metallica's concern is less that the trading is going on, and more that they are opposed to a company profiting (or trying to) without cutting them in. For instance, the band has always supported bootlegging of their shows, with the ability to trade them being implied. They have cracked down on stores that *sell* bootlegs. That is, I think, the distinction that is drawn between Napster/Scour and Gnutella/Freenet. As far as I can tell, Metallica have no objections to the latter two.
It was the state *government* that was regulating the content. Did you see that? *Government* was regulating the 'net. And your solution: more government?
The reason Amtrak will fail is beacuse it's been a political football for all these years. Under federal control, it has become a massive featherbedding program. It could be profitable if privatized with <ul> <li>A 10-30% cut in fares (Increasing volume)</li> <li>Sacking 40-60% of it's workers (increasing efficiency by a factor of 2-3 times)</li> </ul>
If that is done, not only will Amtrak be profitable but it will be running significantly more high-speed service throughout the country (Florida, Atlanta-Chicago, Seattle-Portland, San Diego-LA, et al).
Logan is geographically the closest airport to downtown in a major city in the US though it takes about an hour to get from the gate to downtown (though that'll improve when the Ted Williams Tunnel opens.
It's much more that no killer app has emerged yet for this sort of power (excepting games). The Internet pushed people to (for want of a better term) 686 machines (PII, K6-II and -III, their PowerPC equivalents). Since then, nothing has emerged. The 'net isn't chewing up CPU cycles like it used to (and won't until Cable/DSL connections become significantly more common). When broadband internet becomes more prevalent, we'll see another boom in high-end sales (which have been in a slump for the last few years).
There's another argument: that you pick the most volatile investments you can find, and invest x dollars every set time period. The logic behind this is that you very quickly accumulate shares, at a relatively low cost (on average).
Of course, it's a good idea to put floor and ceiling values in, so that you can get out at an opportune time. This is actually an ideal setup for a 401(k) plan, where a certain percentage of the money that you're playing with isn't really your own.
There already is. It's called Opera (http://www.opera.com). I don't know which platform you're using but it's by far the best browser for Windows, and it's Linux betas are geting more and more stable.
But purchasing stock does not inflate profits. Any comapany that records sales of its stock as revenue is asking to be fined big bucks by assorted government agencies. It's a really evil accounting process.
I honestly don't think Unix (any flavor) will be an OS for the masses (at least not anytime soon). OS X is a step in that direction, but it won't be *the* step.
In order to be a viable OS for the masses, a system needs to support a certain level of gaming. It'll be at least a couple of years before we start seeing leading-edge games released for OS X. If/When that happens, I'll revise my opinion. But I think it's at least a few years away.
The PowerPC architecture found in the Mac is a more efficient CPU design than the x86 cpu.
Also, while windows' process management leaves a lot to be desired, the MacOS, until OS X, has been even worse. But this may actually be a good thing because Windows systems are generally overloaded with background tasks, which Macs don't tend to be.
From the Civil War until the 1960's, for the most part, the Republicans were dominated by the progressive wing of the party (then the Goldwater wing took over). The Democrats were split between the southern ultra-conservatives, and the progressives who had come up through the industrial city political machines.
I preface by saying that I am a Libertarian.
I still cannot believe that Nader has all the support he does. The record has deomonstrated consistently that he is a paranoid, union-busting, trial lawyer. He himself is in the richest 1% of the country (and he and his organizations own stock in several of the globalized corporations that he rallies against). He is unbelievably secretive (thanks to his paranoia). The reason he's spending less than $5K on his campaign is because if he spent that amount, he'd have to disclose financial information about himself. His organizations never reveal where their assets are invested. All in all, I am convinced that Nader is a hypocrite.
(source: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm)
The Libertarian Party's view on this issue is essentially that by shrinking the scope of the government, there would be no reason for "fat-cat greedy un-American corporate bureaucrats" to give money to political candidates because such an act would be throwing money down the drain.
The LP opposes all campaign finance reform on the grounds that the act of giving money to a candidate is an act of political expression and attempts to regulate political expression (or any other expression) are verboten.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting business model.
It could be applied to auctioning large blocks of hardware. For instance, they could start an auction for 20 GeForce 64MB graphics cards at $400 FOB to be shipped three months from the auction date (of course prices would rise in the auction). Payment would be made at the close of the auction. Offer the option to adjust the shipping date for a fee/credit.
Something like this couldn't realistically be carried out at the retail level, and I doubt it would work at the system level, either, though.
RAM and hard drives might be the best suited for this sort of thing.
I think Metallica's concern is less that the trading is going on, and more that they are opposed to a company profiting (or trying to) without cutting them in. For instance, the band has always supported bootlegging of their shows, with the ability to trade them being implied. They have cracked down on stores that *sell* bootlegs. That is, I think, the distinction that is drawn between Napster/Scour and Gnutella/Freenet. As far as I can tell, Metallica have no objections to the latter two.
Hello?
It was the state *government* that was regulating the content. Did you see that? *Government* was regulating the 'net. And your solution: more government?
This guy either can't read or he's a troll.
But this ruling isn't really a significant thing. It's just upholding a lower court ruling, guys.
The reason Amtrak will fail is beacuse it's been a political football for all these years. Under federal control, it has become a massive featherbedding program. It could be profitable if privatized with
<ul>
<li>A 10-30% cut in fares (Increasing volume)</li>
<li>Sacking 40-60% of it's workers (increasing efficiency by a factor of 2-3 times)</li>
</ul>
If that is done, not only will Amtrak be profitable but it will be running significantly more high-speed service throughout the country (Florida, Atlanta-Chicago, Seattle-Portland, San Diego-LA, et al).
The Blue Line in Boston also goes to the airport.
Logan is geographically the closest airport to downtown in a major city in the US though it takes about an hour to get from the gate to downtown (though that'll improve when the Ted Williams Tunnel opens.
The reason for that is very simple, the rail companies and the airlines are all government owned and heavily regulated.
When I was in the Hofbrauhaus two sumers ago, they actually had a coin-op BAC meter near the restrooms. Yes, there were contests.
Put Win 3.x up against OS/2 1.x's Presentation Manager... they're the same UI
Put Win 95 up against OS/2 2.0... very similar.
I think that the Win interface is less stolen from the Mac than it is from the OS/2 interface (which has some Mac influences in it, granted)
It's much more that no killer app has emerged yet for this sort of power (excepting games). The Internet pushed people to (for want of a better term) 686 machines (PII, K6-II and -III, their PowerPC equivalents). Since then, nothing has emerged. The 'net isn't chewing up CPU cycles like it used to (and won't until Cable/DSL connections become significantly more common). When broadband internet becomes more prevalent, we'll see another boom in high-end sales (which have been in a slump for the last few years).
To engineer a site for Nutscrape is as bad (if not worse) than designing for IE. All sites should be designed for W3C compliance.
There's another argument: that you pick the most volatile investments you can find, and invest x dollars every set time period. The logic behind this is that you very quickly accumulate shares, at a relatively low cost (on average).
Of course, it's a good idea to put floor and ceiling values in, so that you can get out at an opportune time. This is actually an ideal setup for a 401(k) plan, where a certain percentage of the money that you're playing with isn't really your own.
There already is. It's called Opera (http://www.opera.com). I don't know which platform you're using but it's by far the best browser for Windows, and it's Linux betas are geting more and more stable.
But purchasing stock does not inflate profits. Any comapany that records sales of its stock as revenue is asking to be fined big bucks by assorted government agencies. It's a really evil accounting process.
If the gov't gets into the broadband isp business, it will effectively hand itself a mononpoly. ood luck getting good service...
expect the first non-'nix os to support this kind of power to be os/2...
The transcendental number e is the most powerful force in the universe. It is content to work behind the scenes.
I honestly don't think Unix (any flavor) will be an OS for the masses (at least not anytime soon). OS X is a step in that direction, but it won't be *the* step.
In order to be a viable OS for the masses, a system needs to support a certain level of gaming. It'll be at least a couple of years before we start seeing leading-edge games released for OS X. If/When that happens, I'll revise my opinion. But I think it's at least a few years away.
The preceding could be wrong, though.
The PowerPC architecture found in the Mac is a more efficient CPU design than the x86 cpu.
Also, while windows' process management leaves a lot to be desired, the MacOS, until OS X, has been even worse. But this may actually be a good thing because Windows systems are generally overloaded with background tasks, which Macs don't tend to be.
That's my view. I could be wrong.
From the Civil War until the 1960's, for the most part, the Republicans were dominated by the progressive wing of the party (then the Goldwater wing took over). The Democrats were split between the southern ultra-conservatives, and the progressives who had come up through the industrial city political machines.
I preface by saying that I am a Libertarian. I still cannot believe that Nader has all the support he does. The record has deomonstrated consistently that he is a paranoid, union-busting, trial lawyer. He himself is in the richest 1% of the country (and he and his organizations own stock in several of the globalized corporations that he rallies against). He is unbelievably secretive (thanks to his paranoia). The reason he's spending less than $5K on his campaign is because if he spent that amount, he'd have to disclose financial information about himself. His organizations never reveal where their assets are invested. All in all, I am convinced that Nader is a hypocrite. (source: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm)
The Libertarian Party's view on this issue is essentially that by shrinking the scope of the government, there would be no reason for "fat-cat greedy un-American corporate bureaucrats" to give money to political candidates because such an act would be throwing money down the drain. The LP opposes all campaign finance reform on the grounds that the act of giving money to a candidate is an act of political expression and attempts to regulate political expression (or any other expression) are verboten.