Doubtful. And if he was, he'll never, ever admit it.
Can't remember if that site says that in order to be informed, in addition to knowing about jury nullification, a jury must be informed of the possible penalties.
If you were trying to invent a term that includes people only from a single nation in the North and South American continents, rather than being a a douchebag, you would have said Americans of the United States. But we know you're just being a douchebag. Or a sheep fucker. The choice is yours.
nor do they have the right to remain silent where the question could not possibly be self incriminating and the subject of the investigation is not themselves.
A person is a damned fool if they think that they can determine this on their own. They are doubly foolish if they trust a law enforcement officer to answer this question for them. Someone in one of these threads had links to the ACLU vids on talking to the cop. Long story short: shut your pie hole.
Again, it's not meant to help any one person; it's an aggregate.
Collusion can only occur with imperfect knowledge. Imperfect knowledge means a non-free market.
If we are talking a study of free market economics, yes, it is utility that is maximized. For one company, they will choose pure dollars right now, no matter what. For another, they'll choose more dollars later. For a third, they'll sacrifice some profit in both the short and long term in favor of paying workers more. Similar analysis applies on the demand side.
I hope I didn't come across as either supporting or condemning MD's law. TBH, I really am not sure how I feel. Usually I support privacy, but I see no problem with recording your own actions in general. Mostly I just wanted folks to know a little background.
Despite your troll worthy reply to a light hearted joke, I've got a little time to kill:
Friedman et al. do not predict the nature of the market that will develop nor do they predict the results for a single consumer. Their focus is on macro level ideas. Your own individual utility is not maximized in this freeish market. This does not implicate a failure on the part of their analysis, as, presumably, the utility of ALL parties is maximized: buyers and sellers as a whole.
In my flippant response is a kernel of truth. The free market did not predict or promise you, the single human being, anything. It predicts that for the entirety of the 'market', our utility will be maximized. For some this will mean that DLC and other non-traditional game transactions will be an incredible deal that they could never have imagined possible. For others, they'll be wholly pissed off and walk away from the whole mess.
The market that is arising is entirely to be expected. I'm going to assume that you've had calculus along the way. Further, I'm assuming you know that an integral results, basically, from subdividing an area into ever smaller areas so that rectangular areas summed will equal the area under the curve. Microtransactions are doing this in the market. Buying a $50 boxed game gives utility as dx approaches 1, for example, whereas a microtransaction gives utility as dx approaches 0. I have no idea if this is the econometrics present in Chicago school economics, but it certainly could fit.
TL;DR: Maximizing utility of the market doesn't mean anything regarding the individual buyer or seller.
Ken Rossignol was on the scene with a related case. His website looks like crap, he's horribly biased, and generally crazy, but I prefer his rag to that published by the Washington Post.
The one good bit of news is that a few counties in the state are walking back from this kinda BS in light of the publicity it has garnered. The case in St. Mary's Co. is particularly interesting in that light. The DA was getting some bad press (compounded by him bringing his election opponent up on bogus charges as well as being an admitted rapist) so basically refused to prosecute.
I also notice that nobody is discussing the history of the MD statute. Prior to the Lewinsky-Clinton affair, it was pseudo-legal to tape without consent. The two party requirement is some fallout due to Linda Tripp surreptitiously taping a conversation with Lewinsky in the state.
Most people don't stress over five cents. That's the whole point. It will be less stressful (and therefore, more likely to succeed) with multiple nickel transactions.
You will figure it's not worth the effort to see if it is cost effective and pass on the entire scheme. EA and others are betting that enough people will figure it's not worth the effort and go ahead and purchase. Judging by the value and profile of Zynga, it's not hard to figure which way to bet.
Basically, you've answered your own question. The alternative is to not play. Sorry if you don't like this, but free marketers never promised free ponies. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut either.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost by definition, people ignore externalities.
Should that viewpoint be applied to any/all video games then? Should ./ not post a video game story?
Especially in the games section. I mean, wtf?!
They are only doing it in the presence of government 'subsidies'. If your business doesn't work without subsidies, it is not viable.
If 50%+ of your employees are H1-B's, I would suggest that your business model is not viable in the United States.
Doubtful. And if he was, he'll never, ever admit it.
Can't remember if that site says that in order to be informed, in addition to knowing about jury nullification, a jury must be informed of the possible penalties.
Well, heck, the only thing that I'm left with is that you're getting old and your eyes have gone all pear shaped.
Does an iPad weigh more than a duck?
Yeah, but, but, I agree, but... The alternative in DC is the Moonie Times for God's sake!
If you were trying to invent a term that includes people only from a single nation in the North and South American continents, rather than being a a douchebag, you would have said Americans of the United States. But we know you're just being a douchebag. Or a sheep fucker. The choice is yours.
nor do they have the right to remain silent where the question could not possibly be self incriminating and the subject of the investigation is not themselves.
A person is a damned fool if they think that they can determine this on their own. They are doubly foolish if they trust a law enforcement officer to answer this question for them. Someone in one of these threads had links to the ACLU vids on talking to the cop. Long story short: shut your pie hole.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
Alternatively, you may be corrected by a judge.
What is this 'USian' of what you speak? Is that some subtle jibe such as calling an Austrailian citizen a 'sheep fucking aboriginal killer'?
Please post your current IP address so I can confirm your password is insecure.
127.0.0.1
Again, it's not meant to help any one person; it's an aggregate.
Collusion can only occur with imperfect knowledge. Imperfect knowledge means a non-free market.
If we are talking a study of free market economics, yes, it is utility that is maximized. For one company, they will choose pure dollars right now, no matter what. For another, they'll choose more dollars later. For a third, they'll sacrifice some profit in both the short and long term in favor of paying workers more. Similar analysis applies on the demand side.
A post like that certainly deserves a karma boost.
or Israel is close enough to [Egypt | Jordan | Syria | Iran | Iraq]
That's not the punchline. You're supposed to say "pick two".
I hope I didn't come across as either supporting or condemning MD's law. TBH, I really am not sure how I feel. Usually I support privacy, but I see no problem with recording your own actions in general. Mostly I just wanted folks to know a little background.
you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.
I'm gonna start waiting for tickets right now. Excuse me.
Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!
Um... They're both James Cameron films. What would he care if one outshone the other.
Depends on how many points he got. And whether they were gross or net.
Despite your troll worthy reply to a light hearted joke, I've got a little time to kill:
Friedman et al. do not predict the nature of the market that will develop nor do they predict the results for a single consumer. Their focus is on macro level ideas. Your own individual utility is not maximized in this freeish market. This does not implicate a failure on the part of their analysis, as, presumably, the utility of ALL parties is maximized: buyers and sellers as a whole.
In my flippant response is a kernel of truth. The free market did not predict or promise you, the single human being, anything. It predicts that for the entirety of the 'market', our utility will be maximized. For some this will mean that DLC and other non-traditional game transactions will be an incredible deal that they could never have imagined possible. For others, they'll be wholly pissed off and walk away from the whole mess.
The market that is arising is entirely to be expected. I'm going to assume that you've had calculus along the way. Further, I'm assuming you know that an integral results, basically, from subdividing an area into ever smaller areas so that rectangular areas summed will equal the area under the curve. Microtransactions are doing this in the market. Buying a $50 boxed game gives utility as dx approaches 1, for example, whereas a microtransaction gives utility as dx approaches 0. I have no idea if this is the econometrics present in Chicago school economics, but it certainly could fit.
TL;DR: Maximizing utility of the market doesn't mean anything regarding the individual buyer or seller.
Still TL;DR: Friedman didn't promise you a pony.
Ken Rossignol was on the scene with a related case. His website looks like crap, he's horribly biased, and generally crazy, but I prefer his rag to that published by the Washington Post.
The one good bit of news is that a few counties in the state are walking back from this kinda BS in light of the publicity it has garnered. The case in St. Mary's Co. is particularly interesting in that light. The DA was getting some bad press (compounded by him bringing his election opponent up on bogus charges as well as being an admitted rapist) so basically refused to prosecute.
I also notice that nobody is discussing the history of the MD statute. Prior to the Lewinsky-Clinton affair, it was pseudo-legal to tape without consent. The two party requirement is some fallout due to Linda Tripp surreptitiously taping a conversation with Lewinsky in the state.
Most people don't stress over five cents. That's the whole point. It will be less stressful (and therefore, more likely to succeed) with multiple nickel transactions.
You will figure it's not worth the effort to see if it is cost effective and pass on the entire scheme. EA and others are betting that enough people will figure it's not worth the effort and go ahead and purchase. Judging by the value and profile of Zynga, it's not hard to figure which way to bet.
Basically, you've answered your own question. The alternative is to not play. Sorry if you don't like this, but free marketers never promised free ponies. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut either.