Companies don't hoard cash. In fact, hoarding cash is STUPID. The goal of a corporation is to be as profitable as possible, and that meaans they have to do something with all those dollars they have in the bank, where they're only earning a shitty 2% or so.
Indeed. If the system is fair, information and transaction costs are low, and various other tenants of intermediate microeconomics hold true.
However, if everyone is playing a positive-sum game, and one player plays against everyone else in a zero-sum manner, that one player can capture all the wealth in the system and keep it for himself.
In business school, the first semester you take intermediate micro. Then starting with the second semester, they say, "OK, now you know how competition works. Here is how you will undermine competition to capture the entire market for yourself."
I would like to think that too, but I doubt it. I suspect that this original language was drafted specifically to draw out the opposition that has occured. Now the "compromise" bill, which will contain 87.645% of the provisions of the original, will be rammed through.
sPh
Re:The human mind is a good filter EXAMPLE
on
The Hypermedia Hazard
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The one significant nugget I picked up, and only heard once, was that the particular strain of anthrax is native the the US, not the middle east, not somewhere else in the world. This is very significant because it begins to shed light on who's behind, and who may not be.
Except that various labs in the United States are worldwide leaders in anthrax research, and have shipped samples to other labs all over the world. The lab in Iowa that isolated the "Ames strain" shipped a sample to the Iraqi Ministry of Health in 1989 - perfectly legal and a perfectly unremarkable request - at that time. Now of course the implications might be a bit different.
Odds are that there is another bill lurking around somewhere which has 83.67% of the provisions of the original. The "bad bill" will be killed publicly, then the 2nd bill will be slipped through in a stealth mode.
Why does everyone here get all worked up about the governement watching us if they truely have nothing to hide? I mean, you guys are starting to sound like a bunch of criminals.
Who will guard the guardians? Which is a quote from Roman times, showing how little human nature changes over the years.
In the 1900's, in the US, alone, off the top of my head, we have people who opposed US entry into "the Great War" being imprisoned for life, people who didn't agree with the conventional wisdom concering communism being imprisoned or hounded, people who J. Edgar Hoover didn't approve of being spied upon, harassed, intimidated, and blackmailed (by the government!), people who Richard Nixon didn't like being targeted by the IRS, people who Richard J. Daley didn't like being spied upon and shot, and so on.
What IS true, though, is that most merchants, if you have ever disputed a charge with them, will never accept a credit card from you again (which makes sense, no?)
Um, not, it doesn't make sense, since it would make the entire concept of a "credit dispute" under the Fair Credit Report Act meaningless. Such behaviour might well be actionable under the FCRA and/or Robinson-Patman Act.
IT is not their responsbility to ensure that you get your product. They make this VERY clear.
On the other hand, aiding and abetting a crime is also itself a crime. Even if you publish a disclaimer, if your conduct over a period of time assists a criminal, you could be liable in both civil and criminal action even if you did not commit the crime yourself.
So the question is, if there actually were 700 bad auctions, did eBay have a standard of care to prevent more from occuring?
I live in the world's most motorized city, L.A. and have since 1997. I have never driven.
A few very dedicated, very creative, and very resourceful people can live in the average US city [1] without an automobile. The vast majority of the population is not so resourseful and essentially must have a car in order to survive. I guess you could say if they aren't smart enough to defend themselves, they deserve what they get, but that's a pretty grim way to live.
[1] It is of course possible to live in a few cities, particularly New York, Chicago, and Boston, without a car, but not many others.
I agree that it is unclear if eBay should have any responsibility here.
But if you think they do, and you think they have not fulfilled that responsibility, write a letter outlining your case, and how you think it should be resolved. Put the letter on paper with a physical signature. Address the letter to the Chairman of the Board of eBay, with a copy to the chairman of the Audit Committee if he is a non-employee director, or to the senior non-employee director if he is not (I think the audit committee must be non-employees but not sure). Mail the letters US Mail, registered, return receipt requested.
Note that you are unlikely to get any action anyway. But a registered letter to the Audit Committee must be logged and reviewed by someone, so you at least have a bit of a chance.
For any significant amount of money on eBay I send the postal money order by U.S. Mail. The penalties for mail fraud are quite severe and the post office does like to investigate reports of same.
See if any of the buys used the U.S. Mail and/or a postal money order. If so, have that person or persons file a complaint with the postmaster of their zip code, and have him reference the other cases that you have dug up.
If Microsoft were offering a rebate for folks who returned their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But they aren't, and so it isn't.
How long have you been supporting PC software in a corporate environment? No more than 3 years would be my guess. Since what you describe is exactly how software upgrades were handled until 1998 or so.
Even today, many packages require you to insert the original first floppy disk (many come with a floppy just for that purpose, which is serialized) or the original CD (also serialized) before they will install the upgrade.
That's pure fiction. If it was truth, you'd have to trade in the previous version (or at least prove that you owned it) at the time you purchased the upgrade. In reality, these "upgrade" copies of the software are sold on retail shelves to anyone who wants to buy them
While the "sell the upgrade to anyone" marketing trick is now pretty prevalent, I for one remember ripping user manual title pages out of MS-DOS 5.0 books, and collecting "Disk 1's" from same, to send to the vendor when we ordered MS-DOS 6.x. And we were on a Select Agreement-type plan at the time.
...in the last 20 years. Pressure group floats a ridiculous and unbelievable trial balloon. Public outcry ensues. Pressure group "retreats" to a "compromise" position, showing its "reasonableness" to legislators and the courts. The so-called "compromise" position is 120% of what the presssure group wanted in the first place, to give them a little more wiggle room.
I think you can be pretty sure this will be followed by a similar proposal, probably slipped under the radar screen by a pet legislator.
what exactly is the purpose of this. After perusing the site i'm not exactly sure what the purpose of this is. at first i thought it was related to terrorist hiding information in images on the internet. can someone shed some light of this situation.
Based on my pre-9/11 reading, bin Laden's bunch pass messages via the spoken word, face-to-face, using messengers who are personally known to them and who usually have some sort of family tie.
Therefore, we are going to get very worried about, and pass lots of laws concerning, ultra-sophisticated encryption technology that no evil-doer would ever touch due to (a) complexity (b) potential to stand out like a sore thumb.
If you sell your old 140hp internal combustion engine, you no longer have the right to install the 280hp internal combustion engine you've purchased as an upgrade.
When you go to a speed shop and "trade in" your 140 hp engine, you physically give them the old engine, which they either remanufacture (to earn extra $$) or scrap (to get it off the market).
Similarly, when you take part in a refrigerator trade-in sponsered by an electric utility, you must provide proof that the original refrigerator was scrapped, otherwise the point of the program (to increase energy efficiency) would be nullified.
"What about property rights of the buyer, aka right of first sale?"
Which doesn't apply to copies of the original, no? Right of first sales gives you the right to re-sell the original, not make a photocopy for yourself and sell the original.
Yes, I am aware of the problem with preloaded copies, which Microsoft seems to think are more like banannas than actual objects. That's a different discussion.
...we're making a tremendous leap of logic in assuming the EULAs are legally binding, aren't we?
Well, there's also the minor philosophical/moral point concerning whether or not violating the EULA provisions is stealing. Even if you (and your lawyer) believe that certain provisions of the EULA are unconscionable, that doesn't justify violating the basic property rights of the seller.
An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade. It's been that way in the PC market since 1978 (well before M$ became dominant) and in the commercial software market long before that. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.
I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.
Reps that don't value a 20th century way of communicating over a 21st century way of communicating because they don't understand the 'new-fangled' variety.
Well, it is all over this discussion, but when did that ever stop a Slashdot poster from being repetitive;-).
There are good reasons why elected officals give little weight to e-mail. There may be some less good, "clueless" reasons as well, but please do not jump to the conclusion that those who do not prefer your chosen technology are "clueless".
After all, the world ran quite well for 10's of thousands of years without e-mail. Or as our water supply company said in their Y2K letter: "We don't use any computers anywhere in the system that delivers your water". Which would you rather live without: e-mail, or flush toilets?
That's pretty good. The thing to do would be to set it up on a web site, perhaps with the condition that to grant the award you must explain to whom you are granting it and why. You would need to start out by granting it to at least 2 people. Then publish the succeeding grants and see what happens!
823,000 USD at today's interbank rate, per Oanda.com. Not too shabby.
Was recently reading a biography of Enrico Fermi. The cash he received from the Nobel prize, plus the jewlery his wife was able to take with her to Sweden for the prize ceremony, allowed them to escape Italy to the US (his wife was Jewish).
And none of us needs him to tell us who's clueless, its fairly obvious.
It is always blindingly obvious to the "clueful" who is "clueful" and who is "clueless".
The problem is, it is often just as obvious to others that those who consider themselves "clueful" are one or more of (a) immature (b) naive (c) ill-educated (d) insufficiently experienced (e) obnoxious (f) possessed of a 6th-grade sense of humour, and a 6th-grader's conviction that he is the funniest thing in the world.
It is not always so obvious to others that the "clueful" are in fact any smarter than the rest of us. As witness the dotbomb debacle of 2001.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if everyone is playing a positive-sum game, and one player plays against everyone else in a zero-sum manner, that one player can capture all the wealth in the system and keep it for himself.
In business school, the first semester you take intermediate micro. Then starting with the second semester, they say, "OK, now you know how competition works. Here is how you will undermine competition to capture the entire market for yourself."
I will leave you to fill in the examples.
sPh
I would like to think that too, but I doubt it. I suspect that this original language was drafted specifically to draw out the opposition that has occured. Now the "compromise" bill, which will contain 87.645% of the provisions of the original, will be rammed through.
sPh
sPh
The only problem I see is what they claim not to have done is pretty close to what they agree that they did do.
Be careful out there - it's a villifying world these days.
sPh
Odds are that there is another bill lurking around somewhere which has 83.67% of the provisions of the original. The "bad bill" will be killed publicly, then the 2nd bill will be slipped through in a stealth mode.
sPh
In the 1900's, in the US, alone, off the top of my head, we have people who opposed US entry into "the Great War" being imprisoned for life, people who didn't agree with the conventional wisdom concering communism being imprisoned or hounded, people who J. Edgar Hoover didn't approve of being spied upon, harassed, intimidated, and blackmailed (by the government!), people who Richard Nixon didn't like being targeted by the IRS, people who Richard J. Daley didn't like being spied upon and shot, and so on.
sPh
sPh
So the question is, if there actually were 700 bad auctions, did eBay have a standard of care to prevent more from occuring?
sPh
[1] It is of course possible to live in a few cities, particularly New York, Chicago, and Boston, without a car, but not many others.
sPh
I agree that it is unclear if eBay should have any responsibility here.
But if you think they do, and you think they have not fulfilled that responsibility, write a letter outlining your case, and how you think it should be resolved. Put the letter on paper with a physical signature. Address the letter to the Chairman of the Board of eBay, with a copy to the chairman of the Audit Committee if he is a non-employee director, or to the senior non-employee director if he is not (I think the audit committee must be non-employees but not sure). Mail the letters US Mail, registered, return receipt requested.
Note that you are unlikely to get any action anyway. But a registered letter to the Audit Committee must be logged and reviewed by someone, so you at least have a bit of a chance.
sPh
For any significant amount of money on eBay I send the postal money order by U.S. Mail. The penalties for mail fraud are quite severe and the post office does like to investigate reports of same.
See if any of the buys used the U.S. Mail and/or a postal money order. If so, have that person or persons file a complaint with the postmaster of their zip code, and have him reference the other cases that you have dug up.
sPh
"Germany is establishing itself as a very technologically-conscious country"
Yeah, since about 1840 or so...
sPh
Even today, many packages require you to insert the original first floppy disk (many come with a floppy just for that purpose, which is serialized) or the original CD (also serialized) before they will install the upgrade.
sPh
sPh
...in the last 20 years. Pressure group floats a ridiculous and unbelievable trial balloon. Public outcry ensues. Pressure group "retreats" to a "compromise" position, showing its "reasonableness" to legislators and the courts. The so-called "compromise" position is 120% of what the presssure group wanted in the first place, to give them a little more wiggle room.
I think you can be pretty sure this will be followed by a similar proposal, probably slipped under the radar screen by a pet legislator.
sPh
Therefore, we are going to get very worried about, and pass lots of laws concerning, ultra-sophisticated encryption technology that no evil-doer would ever touch due to (a) complexity (b) potential to stand out like a sore thumb.
Clear now?
sPh
Similarly, when you take part in a refrigerator trade-in sponsered by an electric utility, you must provide proof that the original refrigerator was scrapped, otherwise the point of the program (to increase energy efficiency) would be nullified.
Both are better analogies to software upgrades.
sPh
"What about property rights of the buyer, aka right of first sale?"
Which doesn't apply to copies of the original, no? Right of first sales gives you the right to re-sell the original, not make a photocopy for yourself and sell the original.
Yes, I am aware of the problem with preloaded copies, which Microsoft seems to think are more like banannas than actual objects. That's a different discussion.
sPh
sPh
An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade. It's been that way in the PC market since 1978 (well before M$ became dominant) and in the commercial software market long before that. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.
I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.
sPh
There are good reasons why elected officals give little weight to e-mail. There may be some less good, "clueless" reasons as well, but please do not jump to the conclusion that those who do not prefer your chosen technology are "clueless".
After all, the world ran quite well for 10's of thousands of years without e-mail. Or as our water supply company said in their Y2K letter: "We don't use any computers anywhere in the system that delivers your water". Which would you rather live without: e-mail, or flush toilets?
sPh
That's pretty good. The thing to do would be to set it up on a web site, perhaps with the condition that to grant the award you must explain to whom you are granting it and why. You would need to start out by granting it to at least 2 people. Then publish the succeeding grants and see what happens!
sPh
823,000 USD at today's interbank rate, per Oanda.com. Not too shabby.
Was recently reading a biography of Enrico Fermi. The cash he received from the Nobel prize, plus the jewlery his wife was able to take with her to Sweden for the prize ceremony, allowed them to escape Italy to the US (his wife was Jewish).
sPh
"So how about if someone develops some software that prints out ascii as though it has been handwritten?"
It's called a daisy wheel printer. Queme Sprint anyone? But I imagine there aren't too many of those left in operation.
sPh
It is always blindingly obvious to the "clueful" who is "clueful" and who is "clueless".
The problem is, it is often just as obvious to others that those who consider themselves "clueful" are one or more of (a) immature (b) naive (c) ill-educated (d) insufficiently experienced (e) obnoxious (f) possessed of a 6th-grade sense of humour, and a 6th-grader's conviction that he is the funniest thing in the world.
It is not always so obvious to others that the "clueful" are in fact any smarter than the rest of us. As witness the dotbomb debacle of 2001.
sPh