Stores closing down doesn't lead to "decrepit town centres", it leads to new stores moving into the now free stores: coffee shops, maker spaces, skateboard vendors, who knows. That's a good thing.
And if there really were no demand or need for "town centres" other than to keep obsolete businesses there, then we should demolish them and get rid of them. Why should people who have no need of "town centres" continue to pay high taxes to maintain them? And make no mistake: high density living is expensive once you take all the externalities into account.
You know, there are other online bookstores besides Amazon. If the price differences matter to you, shop there.
Re:Does this mean anything?
on
The Price of Amazon
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Prices of books have in many places been set by price controls and monopolistic practices. Of course, the consequences have been a massive government handout for publishers and making books less available to people who weren't rich. This is particularly true in Europe. Even in a monopoly, prices are set by demand, but they are generally set much higher than in a competitive market.
It's nice to see this system undermined by technology and progress. There is now hope that the cozy and corrupt relationship between publishers and their cronies in government will finally end.
more of this "fairness" nonsense
on
The Price of Amazon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One consequence of this shift is that soon no one will know what a book’s “real” price is. Price will be determined by demand and perhaps by whim.
Price is supposed to be set by demand. And if it is set wrong on a whim, people don't buy it.
“Discounting, and especially inconsistent or shifting discounting, really messes with a publisher’s ability to price a book fairly and accurately to its cost,” he added.
If by "fairly" you mean that bloated, overpriced, arrogant publishing houses with excessive internal costs can't force their customers to pay inflated prices anymore, then yes, they can't price "fairly" anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the revolution in the book market isn't done until every single big 20th century publisher is out of businesses, and most authors sell and market their books themselves through convenient and inexpensive online services.
How has this undermined restrictions on domestic spying?
Americans spy on Europeans, Europeans spy on Americans, and then they exchange the data.
I also disagree about Europe being a client state. They have never been any sort of client state of the U.S.
Europe is incapable of defending itself militarily, it's incapable of effective espionage, and it mostly follows the US on economic and social issues. Europe is clearly not an effective challenger to US policies or economic dominance. And while that may seem like a good arrangement in the short term, it's also bad for the US in the long term.
A good example of cooperation between intelligence communities:
Great examples (if they're actually true): European intelligence services are too politically constrained, incompetent and underfunded to do their own work, and so the US gets stuck with both the expense and the political risk of spying for the Europeans. This is exactly the kind of "cooperation" we need to end. Let the Europeans do their own espionage and pay for it, and let them deal with the political fallout for themselves.
Exile was extremely rare compared to self-exile (i.e. emigration). But, yeah, even imposed exile would probably be preferable to incarceration, in particular for political offenses and treason.
This cozy information sharing has evidently been used to undermine restrictions on domestic spying in the US; do you really want that to continue?
Another negative consequence of this cozy and clandestine relationship between US and European governments is policy laundering, which undermines the democratic process.
Finally, the current relationship between the US and Europe strikes me as profoundly dysfunctional. Europe has turned into a kind of client state of the US, living under US protection but having little autonomy. Much as that is amusing to me as an American, it isn't good for either side in the long run. The US needs an equal partner in Europe, and we do best when we actually have to compete. The sooner we stop looking at each other as "friends" and start looking at each other as tough but peaceful competitors, the better for all of us.
A decade ago, a significant majority of Americans was against gay marriage and that has turned around completely. It's a combination of understanding the issues, the slow pace of the justice system, and old folks dying off. Hopefully, Snowden is the beginning of the end of this nonsense.
You still haven't explained what harm Snowden's revelations have actually caused. You seem to think that it is somehow bad that European politicians and European voters are upset by this revelation. But Europeans have hated us for two centuries anyway, this changes nothing. So, where do you actually see the harm?
I ask, because I just don't think the world has any desire to allow the few people running United State of America to do whatever the hell they please, even when it is at the expense of their own citizens, let alone the rest of the world.
"The world" gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize to express their approval of him running the US. Seems a bit disingenuous to complain now.
He only lied if he at that time did not have the intentions to end them, or if at that time he believed he could not actually do it. You better present evidence for that if you want to maintain the claim that he was lying back then.
Obama was a Harvard educated constitutional scholar and well-informed senator, and he made this a centerpiece of his campaign. He has offered no explanation for his change of mind. Under what possible scenario could he have had the honest intention to end this programs that was later thwarted through no fault of his own?
You say that as if it were some sort of horrible solution or unprecedented. Historically, emigration has been a major safety valve, both for the unjustly accused and persecuted to save themselves, and for nations to rid themselves of people that didn't fit in. All European nations got through the last few hundred years that way.
Regardless of what you may think of Snowden, the fact that a non-violent, educated, and skilled guy has no place to go in the world really is a profound change in how the world works, and I don't think it's a good one.
Cryptography's a horrible thing, really: it starts off with the principle that man is evil and will fuck you up if you don't protect yourself
Societies are composed of many different kinds of individuals, and each individual can behave in many different ways. You need to protect yourself even if just a small percentage of people in society want to harm you some of the time.
Lack of privacy is a social problem soluble by bringing up people with a better attitude toward their fellow man, not a technical one soluble with an arms race (which you will lose, btw).
Bullshit. We're biological beings subject to natural laws. A society in which everybody cooperates is provably not a stable solution, nor, for that matter, is it a very good solution. Yes, that's a mathematical fact.
The percentage of people wanting to harm you today is remarkably small by historical standards, and the amount of protection you need is small. Be happy about that, and then take some reasonable precautions, like everybody else.
The kind of disruptive left-wing revolution you imagine, like conservative government as well, tends to increase corruption in government.
So, by definition, when the American finally get tired of the corruption in government, they'll start voting for people who stand for lower taxes and less government powers. It's already starting to happen at the state level.
Well, we need to elect some president. Obama should not have been reelected. People should have revolted before the primaries already so that there would have been a serious primary challenge within the Democrats.
And yes he lied during his campaign. He is a politician. They lie as long as they can get away with it. Has been happening since several thousands of years.
And the way to stop it is to stop them getting away with it. Obama shouldn't have been reelected, not because someone else necessarily would have been better, but simply to punish him for his lies and his utter incompetence. And Obama's lies were really unusually blatant even for a politician.
Look at the people in the Guardian's photo: they hold up a sign of Snowden, write "HERO" across it, and then use the Obama logo for the "O"? How stupid and partisan can you get? Not only is Obama fully responsible for the current NSA actions and keeping them secret, he lied during his campaign when he promised to end such abuses.
Slashdot Mirror
Stores closing down doesn't lead to "decrepit town centres", it leads to new stores moving into the now free stores: coffee shops, maker spaces, skateboard vendors, who knows. That's a good thing.
And if there really were no demand or need for "town centres" other than to keep obsolete businesses there, then we should demolish them and get rid of them. Why should people who have no need of "town centres" continue to pay high taxes to maintain them? And make no mistake: high density living is expensive once you take all the externalities into account.
Switch carriers.
You wait for them to go out of business or until they raise their prices; one or the other has to happen sooner or later.
You know, there are other online bookstores besides Amazon. If the price differences matter to you, shop there.
Prices of books have in many places been set by price controls and monopolistic practices. Of course, the consequences have been a massive government handout for publishers and making books less available to people who weren't rich. This is particularly true in Europe. Even in a monopoly, prices are set by demand, but they are generally set much higher than in a competitive market.
It's nice to see this system undermined by technology and progress. There is now hope that the cozy and corrupt relationship between publishers and their cronies in government will finally end.
Price is supposed to be set by demand. And if it is set wrong on a whim, people don't buy it.
If by "fairly" you mean that bloated, overpriced, arrogant publishing houses with excessive internal costs can't force their customers to pay inflated prices anymore, then yes, they can't price "fairly" anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the revolution in the book market isn't done until every single big 20th century publisher is out of businesses, and most authors sell and market their books themselves through convenient and inexpensive online services.
Americans spy on Europeans, Europeans spy on Americans, and then they exchange the data.
Europe is incapable of defending itself militarily, it's incapable of effective espionage, and it mostly follows the US on economic and social issues. Europe is clearly not an effective challenger to US policies or economic dominance. And while that may seem like a good arrangement in the short term, it's also bad for the US in the long term.
Great examples (if they're actually true): European intelligence services are too politically constrained, incompetent and underfunded to do their own work, and so the US gets stuck with both the expense and the political risk of spying for the Europeans. This is exactly the kind of "cooperation" we need to end. Let the Europeans do their own espionage and pay for it, and let them deal with the political fallout for themselves.
Exile was extremely rare compared to self-exile (i.e. emigration). But, yeah, even imposed exile would probably be preferable to incarceration, in particular for political offenses and treason.
This cozy information sharing has evidently been used to undermine restrictions on domestic spying in the US; do you really want that to continue?
Another negative consequence of this cozy and clandestine relationship between US and European governments is policy laundering, which undermines the democratic process.
Finally, the current relationship between the US and Europe strikes me as profoundly dysfunctional. Europe has turned into a kind of client state of the US, living under US protection but having little autonomy. Much as that is amusing to me as an American, it isn't good for either side in the long run. The US needs an equal partner in Europe, and we do best when we actually have to compete. The sooner we stop looking at each other as "friends" and start looking at each other as tough but peaceful competitors, the better for all of us.
A decade ago, a significant majority of Americans was against gay marriage and that has turned around completely. It's a combination of understanding the issues, the slow pace of the justice system, and old folks dying off. Hopefully, Snowden is the beginning of the end of this nonsense.
You still haven't explained what harm Snowden's revelations have actually caused. You seem to think that it is somehow bad that European politicians and European voters are upset by this revelation. But Europeans have hated us for two centuries anyway, this changes nothing. So, where do you actually see the harm?
Oh very much so, and they are usually created by government, and often subsidized too. Just look at 19th century railroad, steel, banking, sugar, etc.
"The world" gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize to express their approval of him running the US. Seems a bit disingenuous to complain now.
We should be so lucky.
Obama was a Harvard educated constitutional scholar and well-informed senator, and he made this a centerpiece of his campaign. He has offered no explanation for his change of mind. Under what possible scenario could he have had the honest intention to end this programs that was later thwarted through no fault of his own?
You say that as if it were some sort of horrible solution or unprecedented. Historically, emigration has been a major safety valve, both for the unjustly accused and persecuted to save themselves, and for nations to rid themselves of people that didn't fit in. All European nations got through the last few hundred years that way.
Regardless of what you may think of Snowden, the fact that a non-violent, educated, and skilled guy has no place to go in the world really is a profound change in how the world works, and I don't think it's a good one.
Societies are composed of many different kinds of individuals, and each individual can behave in many different ways. You need to protect yourself even if just a small percentage of people in society want to harm you some of the time.
Bullshit. We're biological beings subject to natural laws. A society in which everybody cooperates is provably not a stable solution, nor, for that matter, is it a very good solution. Yes, that's a mathematical fact.
The percentage of people wanting to harm you today is remarkably small by historical standards, and the amount of protection you need is small. Be happy about that, and then take some reasonable precautions, like everybody else.
The kind of disruptive left-wing revolution you imagine, like conservative government as well, tends to increase corruption in government.
So, by definition, when the American finally get tired of the corruption in government, they'll start voting for people who stand for lower taxes and less government powers. It's already starting to happen at the state level.
Well, we need to elect some president. Obama should not have been reelected. People should have revolted before the primaries already so that there would have been a serious primary challenge within the Democrats.
And the way to stop it is to stop them getting away with it. Obama shouldn't have been reelected, not because someone else necessarily would have been better, but simply to punish him for his lies and his utter incompetence. And Obama's lies were really unusually blatant even for a politician.
Look at the people in the Guardian's photo: they hold up a sign of Snowden, write "HERO" across it, and then use the Obama logo for the "O"? How stupid and partisan can you get? Not only is Obama fully responsible for the current NSA actions and keeping them secret, he lied during his campaign when he promised to end such abuses.
Scissors or a pocket knife, snip, and ... quiet.
I'm sure trains would be exempt; they are government owned and operated anyway, and the government can do anything it likes.
Instead of wildly speculating, why don't you just search on what the EFF lawsuit is about. You'll be surprised.
Obama was lying through his teeth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZf8_Cd6H9k
(But European leaders are lying through their teeth too.)