People will always choose option A if it's cheaper than option B, all other things being equal. So if Uber is cheaper by not paying taxes, of course people will use it. It doesn't make it anymore acceptable. I pay my taxes, I expect Uber and drivers to do the same.
Uber is a cab service. So either we cancel all cab services laws, or Uber complies to them. Having two different rules for similar services, just because one happens to be using a smartphone application and is billing from a foreign country is not a valid reason to have two systems.
On your own private road, you might have a point. But chances are you'll be a on public road. You need permit, insurance, and to pay any applicable toll and/or tax.
As I explained, on average enough green electricity is generated to match the usage of those on green tariffs.
That is only if you suppose those green tariffs are the only driving force for renewable electricity production. It isn't. Sometimes renewable is cheaper than the alternatives (hydro, mostly), governments may also enact some regulations favoring renewable. Even if nobody paid the green tariff, there would still be some renewable production.
Don't forget that it doesn't stop at country borders. Quebec has over 98% of its production from renewable. If someone in San Francisco pays the green tariff, a US utility might end-up importing from Quebec. Quebec won't consume any less electricity so it will in turn import from coal or gas producers in the USA. There is no green tariff in Quebec (why would they, with 98% renewable there is no point) so nobody will notice.
Your scenario can only happen when the electric company is already exceeding their responsibility to provide green electricity.
What makes you think it isn't the case in the USA? I read the production is 13% renewable. Is there 13% of the clients (or I should say clients representing 13% of the total production) paying that green tariff?
As long as there are enough people paying more for green electricity. But renewable production didn't start at 0 and people paying for green electricity did. So it was a scam at least for a while, not convinced it is no longer the case.
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can only be achieved through government regulations.
You basically confirm that Apple is charging 15/30% because they can, not because that is a reasonable rate considering the operating costs and normal profit. There isn't only competition on a platform. There is competition between platforms. I'm glad the less closed one is winning, because at least you are allowed to side-load applications without giving that 30% to Google.
You are just wrong. I had a 1280x1024 monitor in 1995 (17" CRT). Surely it was widespread in 2001. As for games, Quake III Arena was released in 1999 and supported any resolution, up to at least 2048x1536. Many games were based on this engine. And many much older games also supported any resolution. The Geforce 3, released in 2001, could acheive 110 fps (more than enough) in this game in 1280x1024 http://www.vogonswiki.com/inde...
You also misunderstood my point on 5:4. What I meant is that 5:4 1280x1024 gives you much more vertical space, but just a little more horizontal space than 1024x768. Are you saying people doing editing wanted toolbars on the top and bottom back then and somehow this all changed and they now need space on all sides? Doesn't make sense.
So in short, if Apple charged 10 for every email sent it would be fine, since the older alternative (regular mail) would cost more? That's not how it works. An electronic store can be operated with much lower fees. A competitive market would reflect that. The fact that Apple can charge 15 or even 30% is just a proof that this isn't a competitive market.
30% is huge, except for penny apps. Dealing with payments is not worth more than 2-3% (what visa and mastercard currently charge, and I'd argue that even that is too much). What Apple is selling is access to the customers, much like a store on a busy street. In a competitive market, I wouldn't expect these fees to be higher than 5%, which is more than enough to cover costs and make a normal profit.
And that is a good thing. iPhones sales have slowed, Android is becoming the dominant platform (>80% market share). It's nice to see this competition forcing Apple to give back a little more. 15% makes a lot more sense than 30%. In a truly competitive market, that would be even lower.
You forget the network effect, which can be a very high barrier to entry. Drivers are on Uber because the customers are there. Customers are on Uber because drivers are available. Try to compete against Uber by being a lone driver with your own application. Even if you are cheaper you won't get any customers.
The only way Uber can loose once they get a dominant position, is if someone can develop a single application to give prices from multiple sources, since the user do not have to know them all (and ideally, doesn't have to be registered with them all). Exactly why they are blocking this.
I've seen the software. They mostly use two monitors. One for full screen viewing, the other one for the interface and scalled-down previews. The difference between 5k and 4k is usually not enough for the interface anyways.
And 1280x1024 was a very common resolution in 2001, and even before, so I don't see your point. That awkward 5:4 ratio was certainly not meant for video editors anyway.
I disagree. 5K isn't meant to give a few more useful pixels. I is meant so that manufacturers can brag about having "more than 4K", which happens to be the maximum available on common standard interfaces (ie HDMI 2.0). I bet those editing on 5K display play videos in full screen anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
People will always choose option A if it's cheaper than option B, all other things being equal.
So if Uber is cheaper by not paying taxes, of course people will use it. It doesn't make it anymore acceptable. I pay my taxes, I expect Uber and drivers to do the same.
Uber is a cab service. So either we cancel all cab services laws, or Uber complies to them. Having two different rules for similar services, just because one happens to be using a smartphone application and is billing from a foreign country is not a valid reason to have two systems.
On your own private road, you might have a point. But chances are you'll be a on public road. You need permit, insurance, and to pay any applicable toll and/or tax.
As I explained, on average enough green electricity is generated to match the usage of those on green tariffs.
That is only if you suppose those green tariffs are the only driving force for renewable electricity production. It isn't. Sometimes renewable is cheaper than the alternatives (hydro, mostly), governments may also enact some regulations favoring renewable.
Even if nobody paid the green tariff, there would still be some renewable production.
Don't forget that it doesn't stop at country borders. Quebec has over 98% of its production from renewable. If someone in San Francisco pays the green tariff, a US utility might end-up importing from Quebec. Quebec won't consume any less electricity so it will in turn import from coal or gas producers in the USA.
There is no green tariff in Quebec (why would they, with 98% renewable there is no point) so nobody will notice.
Your scenario can only happen when the electric company is already exceeding their responsibility to provide green electricity.
What makes you think it isn't the case in the USA? I read the production is 13% renewable. Is there 13% of the clients (or I should say clients representing 13% of the total production) paying that green tariff?
As long as there are enough people paying more for green electricity. But renewable production didn't start at 0 and people paying for green electricity did. So it was a scam at least for a while, not convinced it is no longer the case.
I didn't say 10% of expected demand, I said 10% of total production. But anyways, that was just an example.
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can only be achieved through government regulations.
You basically confirm that Apple is charging 15/30% because they can, not because that is a reasonable rate considering the operating costs and normal profit.
There isn't only competition on a platform. There is competition between platforms. I'm glad the less closed one is winning, because at least you are allowed to side-load applications without giving that 30% to Google.
You are just wrong. I had a 1280x1024 monitor in 1995 (17" CRT). Surely it was widespread in 2001. As for games, Quake III Arena was released in 1999 and supported any resolution, up to at least 2048x1536. Many games were based on this engine. And many much older games also supported any resolution.
The Geforce 3, released in 2001, could acheive 110 fps (more than enough) in this game in 1280x1024 http://www.vogonswiki.com/inde...
You also misunderstood my point on 5:4. What I meant is that 5:4 1280x1024 gives you much more vertical space, but just a little more horizontal space than 1024x768. Are you saying people doing editing wanted toolbars on the top and bottom back then and somehow this all changed and they now need space on all sides? Doesn't make sense.
So in short, if Apple charged 10 for every email sent it would be fine, since the older alternative (regular mail) would cost more?
That's not how it works. An electronic store can be operated with much lower fees. A competitive market would reflect that. The fact that Apple can charge 15 or even 30% is just a proof that this isn't a competitive market.
30% is huge, except for penny apps. Dealing with payments is not worth more than 2-3% (what visa and mastercard currently charge, and I'd argue that even that is too much). What Apple is selling is access to the customers, much like a store on a busy street. In a competitive market, I wouldn't expect these fees to be higher than 5%, which is more than enough to cover costs and make a normal profit.
And that is a good thing. iPhones sales have slowed, Android is becoming the dominant platform (>80% market share). It's nice to see this competition forcing Apple to give back a little more. 15% makes a lot more sense than 30%. In a truly competitive market, that would be even lower.
an IPv4 address would be easier to remember...
Seems reasonable? Really? How do poor people get mail, then? In the US, poor people used to have guaranteed mail delivery 6 days a week.
Who do you think end-up paying for that mail delivered 6 days a week? How does that improve the situation of the poor?
It's all about timing. Nokia could have survived if they entered the Android market from the start.
Gaming in 1280x1024 was very common in 2001. You can change the resolution in most PC games and 1280x1024 was a very common resolution in games.
If 5:4 1280x1024 is good for editing 4:3 1024x768, why is it the only time they used a "squarer" aspect ratio for UI elements?
but those airlines agree to provide their search API to Kayak.
You forget the network effect, which can be a very high barrier to entry.
Drivers are on Uber because the customers are there. Customers are on Uber because drivers are available.
Try to compete against Uber by being a lone driver with your own application. Even if you are cheaper you won't get any customers.
The only way Uber can loose once they get a dominant position, is if someone can develop a single application to give prices from multiple sources, since the user do not have to know them all (and ideally, doesn't have to be registered with them all). Exactly why they are blocking this.
Perhaps Über should register itself in Germany or France.
Aren't they already in Luxembourg and Netherlands?
Agreed. Uber is not ride sharing. Except UberPool, you do not share a ride with anyone. Uber X is a taxi service.
When you accuse someone of failing at math, at least get your facts straight.
Where is the 4k in 2560x1440?
I've seen the software. They mostly use two monitors. One for full screen viewing, the other one for the interface and scalled-down previews. The difference between 5k and 4k is usually not enough for the interface anyways.
And 1280x1024 was a very common resolution in 2001, and even before, so I don't see your point. That awkward 5:4 ratio was certainly not meant for video editors anyway.
I disagree. 5K isn't meant to give a few more useful pixels. I is meant so that manufacturers can brag about having "more than 4K", which happens to be the maximum available on common standard interfaces (ie HDMI 2.0). I bet those editing on 5K display play videos in full screen anyways.
5k is a gimmick. It gives marginally better resolution than 4k for a lot more trouble. I'd wait for 8 or 16k.
except... this is not what is going to happen. They will have both 2D and 3D into the monitor.