GP said there were no explanations. I don't have to identify a school. And whether or not a given interpretation comes from a particular school doesn't change whether or not economics as a discipline teaches it.
Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot
on
Kodak Kills Kodachrome
·
· Score: 1
Two things. First, I for unknown reasons missed that the D40 is a dSLR and not a P&S. Second, your wording is a little unwieldy, seemingly making a comparison, but changing multiple variables. Whatever. Makes sense. I was just curious, as I haven't really heard anything but good about Adorama.
The GP is a little off. Economics teaches that harmful monopolies do not exist in free trade. Harmful means taking excessive profit (actually, excess rent. I forget some of the technical terms). The mechanism for abusive monopoly prevention is described. If there is excess rent, then there is the possibility for another entity to provide the good or service for less. Someone will see this and compete with the abusive monopolizer. The abusive monopolizer must lower prices in order to be a viable competitor, thus no longer being abusive.
You think that's bad, wait for alimony and child support. High end prostitutes are cheap by comparison. (I actually saw a cost breakdown about that, showing cost per act of coitus with a high end prostitute vs. an ex wife. Sad, really)
Way to miss the point douchenozzle. It's the reason asshats like you will be second against the wall, after the marketers of the Encyclopedia Galactica.
Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot
on
Kodak Kills Kodachrome
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying that Adorama is not a reputable dealer?
Yeah, whatever. Most things are trivial to solve. And until legislatures are comprised of something other than 99% lawyers, I'll continue to figure that law is a game, invented by lawyers, for lawyers.
The job of a jury is to determine (in criminal court) "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and in a civil case, "liability based on a preponderance of evidence."
If I'm tasked with finding someone guilt/liable under law X, then as a reasonable, honest, and fair citizen I ought to be able to get and read a copy of law X, to verify that one of the parties in the courtroom (yes, entirely likely including a paid-off judge) hasn't just lied to me about what it says.
Sounds like he's a shill belonging to a particular class of citizenry who doesn't quite understand that the jury was envisioned as having much greater strength than afforded today.
"Oh, tut tut my little laypeople, we'll let the man in the black robe condense all of this difficult to understand stuff into bite sized chunks for you." That's only necessary because the system has been gamed for a few centuries by those jurists making work for themselves by making it too complex for us proles.
So what you are saying is that by not preventing (regulating) private action (creation of CDSs and full service banks), the government prevented the free market from working?
If I read you correctly: the government doesn't do anything==bad. The government does something==bad.
And, much like an air-cooled VW, a C64 isn't much use for anything other than sitting back and watching a few generations worth of progress pass you by.
The difference is that NASCAR teams' sponsored output pays automotive technology dividends,
OMG, did you type that with a straight face? Tube chassis, carburetors, and slick tires? Yeah. Lots of technology trickle down. NASCAR is budgeted by marketing, not R&D.
It's been decades since even the lame homologation specials were around. Even longer since there was any true crossover.
Geez, at least Formula One gave us variable valve timing.
and why shouldn't i be able to decide my own time/money balance there?
Because not everybody gets to be an astronaut. Yes, yes, in America, we know that financial might makes right, but Blizzard owns this particular playground.
Slashdot Mirror
'Long term' costs are different on a vehicle with the mortality rate of a motorcycle.
You don't. You declare bankruptcy and get the judgment vacated.
I don't know what's funnier, the post you replied to, or how completely you missed the point.
GP said there were no explanations. I don't have to identify a school. And whether or not a given interpretation comes from a particular school doesn't change whether or not economics as a discipline teaches it.
Two things. First, I for unknown reasons missed that the D40 is a dSLR and not a P&S. Second, your wording is a little unwieldy, seemingly making a comparison, but changing multiple variables. Whatever. Makes sense. I was just curious, as I haven't really heard anything but good about Adorama.
The GP is a little off. Economics teaches that harmful monopolies do not exist in free trade. Harmful means taking excessive profit (actually, excess rent. I forget some of the technical terms). The mechanism for abusive monopoly prevention is described. If there is excess rent, then there is the possibility for another entity to provide the good or service for less. Someone will see this and compete with the abusive monopolizer. The abusive monopolizer must lower prices in order to be a viable competitor, thus no longer being abusive.
Didn't you get the memo? Only women have reproductive rights in the US. They will split things with you however and give you all the bills.
You think that's bad, wait for alimony and child support. High end prostitutes are cheap by comparison. (I actually saw a cost breakdown about that, showing cost per act of coitus with a high end prostitute vs. an ex wife. Sad, really)
Read it again. Forty times the electrical needs or five times the total energy needs.
Way to miss the point douchenozzle. It's the reason asshats like you will be second against the wall, after the marketers of the Encyclopedia Galactica.
Are you saying that Adorama is not a reputable dealer?
Yeah, whatever. Most things are trivial to solve. And until legislatures are comprised of something other than 99% lawyers, I'll continue to figure that law is a game, invented by lawyers, for lawyers.
How clueless can you be?
The job of a jury is to determine (in criminal court) "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and in a civil case, "liability based on a preponderance of evidence."
If I'm tasked with finding someone guilt/liable under law X, then as a reasonable, honest, and fair citizen I ought to be able to get and read a copy of law X, to verify that one of the parties in the courtroom (yes, entirely likely including a paid-off judge) hasn't just lied to me about what it says.
Sounds like he's a shill belonging to a particular class of citizenry who doesn't quite understand that the jury was envisioned as having much greater strength than afforded today.
"Oh, tut tut my little laypeople, we'll let the man in the black robe condense all of this difficult to understand stuff into bite sized chunks for you." That's only necessary because the system has been gamed for a few centuries by those jurists making work for themselves by making it too complex for us proles.
Ok, but can we score it like golf?
So what you are saying is that by not preventing (regulating) private action (creation of CDSs and full service banks), the government prevented the free market from working?
If I read you correctly: the government doesn't do anything==bad. The government does something==bad.
If your blood is blue, may I suggest releasing the noose after jerking off?
And, much like an air-cooled VW, a C64 isn't much use for anything other than sitting back and watching a few generations worth of progress pass you by.
why would the cult of apple curse IBM!?
If you bled six colors, you wouldn't have to ask.
The difference is that NASCAR teams' sponsored output pays automotive technology dividends,
OMG, did you type that with a straight face? Tube chassis, carburetors, and slick tires? Yeah. Lots of technology trickle down. NASCAR is budgeted by marketing, not R&D.
It's been decades since even the lame homologation specials were around. Even longer since there was any true crossover.
Geez, at least Formula One gave us variable valve timing.
The other reply got the jist of it. Having extra money to blow on a game is seen by plenty as an unfair advantage.
and why shouldn't i be able to decide my own time/money balance there?
Because not everybody gets to be an astronaut. Yes, yes, in America, we know that financial might makes right, but Blizzard owns this particular playground.
Look around you, this kind of stuff happens all over the "real" world.
If I wanted to deal with the real world, why would I spend $12/month to try to wipe the vile Horde and Scourge from the face of Azeroth?
Anal rape in every box.
Where can I get one for my ex?
I got an idea. Ever see that movie "Strangers on a Train"?
In other news, those grapes are looking mighty sour.
My wife cares... trust me, she cares!
And fortunately, I'm reaping the benefits.
That thing she does with her tongue...