They can push all they like, but if people won't pay, they won't pay. In a competitive market buyers are always the ultimate determinant of the price. It can be no other way. Raising prices always reduces aggregate demand.
In any large pool of buyers there are some who are willing to pay more than others, and some who would only pay less. Sellers would love to somehow tier their prices so that those who are willing pay more, but without losing the rest of the buyers. It's because of the large middle that prices normally do not rise to the levels the upper tier is willing to pay. But when there is a sudden reduction in the supply, and the large middle simply cannot be served, that prices naturally and quickly rise to the level the upper tier is willing to pay.
Also wrong. Price is determined by what buyers will pay. Buyers don't care what your costs are.
Some buyers need drives more than others. Some buyers are willing to pay more. That's always true. So when there are suddenly fewer drives to sell they get sold to the buyers willing to pay more. That's why the prices went up. That's why prices always go up when there's suddenly less supply. Nobody cares about your costs.
I am sorry that you live in Thailand, as obviously you shouldn't be here.
If you think that factories can now "get away" with higher prices because they have the excuse of the flood then you don't understand in the slightest how pricing works. If they could "get away" with higher prices they would have already done so. There's no need to have an excuse. It's not some honor code that keeps prices down. Producers everywhere charge the amount that maximizes profit. The only thing that keeps prices down is the concern that the buyer will take his business elsewhere. "having an excuse" is pointless. The buyer doesn't care. He will go where the best deal is. If prices are higher it's because no one is able to offer a better deal. Period.
So then by that definition anything unexpected is ironic? A person trips and falls? - ironic. Flips heads five times in a row? - ironic. The "we never close" convenience store is closed for repairs? - ironic. Wait, forget that last one.
Yes. I have no idea what the right answer is, but this particular article is bad. Filled with scare quotes and adjectives carefully (sorry, "carefully and independently") chosen for their connotation, and ending with a conclusion which the scientists are not qualified to make.
Ideas aren't and shouldn't be protected by copyright. This is a dangerous, if unsurprising, precedent.
Except it's not the idea that was held to be protected. It's the expression of that idea, which is exactly the intent of copyright law.
As much as I despise the current incarnation of copyright law, the ruling seems reasonable to me.
I bet quite a few waves of buying and selling went on before the GP saw the price.
Actually no. There were no buyers. The price adjusted with very few trades taking place. As for the insider stuff, true insiders would have sold earlier.
As for me, I was already short Google, as in my opinion any reasonable thinking person should have been considering how high its price had gone, and the fact that per-click prices have deteriorated, and that it is pouring an absurd amount of money into Android. It's the world's predominant phone OS and yet Google misses the number? That speaks volumes.
The per-click pricing deterioration is devastating. That means that advertisers are not getting the results they need, which means that search is less important to buyers, which means that alternatives can blossom, which means that Google is heading for trouble. They've have to stop throwing around money like a drunken trust-fund baby. They may even have to walk away from Motorola and pay that crazy "I was high when I asked you to marry me" separation fee.
I know I should post this anonymously, and it's sure to get modded to oblivion, but Google used to be a company to truly admire, and it makes me mad to see what they've become instead.
If I'm a facebook registered user and I'm looking for her facebook profile, I'd search Katy Perry on facebook, not on Google
Good point! If you already know where to find the content you're seeking then Google is doing nothing wrong by omitting that result.
So what if Google shapes results to hide things it doesn't want its uses to see? What harm could that possibly do? It's not like North Korea or China.
If your Aunt Tilly thinks "the internet" is what can be found through a Google search that's her own fault! It's not like very many people think that way.
People have to take responsibility for knowing what's out there! Depending on Google for searching "the internet" is just plain ignorant and lazy!
All the stories say Apple is "reportedly" suing, and apparently the only source is the company making the dolls. The whole thing makes little sense. I doubt Apple has ownership of Jobs' likeness. I'm skeptical.
McDonald's fries have been trans-fat free for three years.
Yes. Unfortunately they are still full of potatoes. On the list of "common foods to not eat," fries are right up near the top.
Re:The Sanctity of Life
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When it's time for you to go, it's time for you to go. When it's time for me to go, I'm going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer.
You don't know that. Nobody knows until they're actually faced with the situation. When you're old and tired and in pain you may well have an entirely different outlook than when you're healthy and strong. If at that point science can offer something that restores vitality rather than just prolonging life, of course everyone would like that. That's not a strong statement. It's the hanging on to a painful existence that's in question.
Foxconn has more than 400,000 employees in its main center. Some people commit suicide. 17 suicides out of 400,000 is 4 and a quarter per hundred thousand. What is China's overall suicide rate? just under 14 per hundred thousand. So apparently working at Foxconn greatly reduces the suicide rate.
Shareholders?? Did Valve go public, or is your premise incorrect?
This is about the fifth comment making this same statement. The ignorance is astounding. Corporations have shareholders. That's how it's done. Public or private has nothing to do with it.
Oh, suddenly thats ok, but microsoft as a company discussing destroying another company isn't?
If Apple had enticed Google into developing Android for them, then intentionally pulled the plug in order to cause serious harm and distract and delay them from developing Android in different ways, but claimed to be innocent of that, then yes that Jobs statement would be meaningful.
What does the article mean by the term perfectly executed? From looking at the picture, I can't even see what might have inspired such a comment. It sound like one of those "facts" thrown into make UFO/alien stories sound more credible. "But these were perfectly executed!"
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't just the live pigeon that suffered. It was also the clay aiken.
In any large pool of buyers there are some who are willing to pay more than others, and some who would only pay less. Sellers would love to somehow tier their prices so that those who are willing pay more, but without losing the rest of the buyers. It's because of the large middle that prices normally do not rise to the levels the upper tier is willing to pay. But when there is a sudden reduction in the supply, and the large middle simply cannot be served, that prices naturally and quickly rise to the level the upper tier is willing to pay.
Some buyers need drives more than others. Some buyers are willing to pay more. That's always true. So when there are suddenly fewer drives to sell they get sold to the buyers willing to pay more. That's why the prices went up. That's why prices always go up when there's suddenly less supply. Nobody cares about your costs.
If you think that factories can now "get away" with higher prices because they have the excuse of the flood then you don't understand in the slightest how pricing works. If they could "get away" with higher prices they would have already done so. There's no need to have an excuse. It's not some honor code that keeps prices down. Producers everywhere charge the amount that maximizes profit. The only thing that keeps prices down is the concern that the buyer will take his business elsewhere. "having an excuse" is pointless. The buyer doesn't care. He will go where the best deal is. If prices are higher it's because no one is able to offer a better deal. Period.
So then by that definition anything unexpected is ironic? A person trips and falls? - ironic. Flips heads five times in a row? - ironic. The "we never close" convenience store is closed for repairs? - ironic. Wait, forget that last one.
Yes. I have no idea what the right answer is, but this particular article is bad. Filled with scare quotes and adjectives carefully (sorry, "carefully and independently") chosen for their connotation, and ending with a conclusion which the scientists are not qualified to make.
Except it's not the idea that was held to be protected. It's the expression of that idea, which is exactly the intent of copyright law.
As much as I despise the current incarnation of copyright law, the ruling seems reasonable to me.
Actually no. There were no buyers. The price adjusted with very few trades taking place. As for the insider stuff, true insiders would have sold earlier.
As for me, I was already short Google, as in my opinion any reasonable thinking person should have been considering how high its price had gone, and the fact that per-click prices have deteriorated, and that it is pouring an absurd amount of money into Android. It's the world's predominant phone OS and yet Google misses the number? That speaks volumes.
The per-click pricing deterioration is devastating. That means that advertisers are not getting the results they need, which means that search is less important to buyers, which means that alternatives can blossom, which means that Google is heading for trouble. They've have to stop throwing around money like a drunken trust-fund baby. They may even have to walk away from Motorola and pay that crazy "I was high when I asked you to marry me" separation fee.
I know I should post this anonymously, and it's sure to get modded to oblivion, but Google used to be a company to truly admire, and it makes me mad to see what they've become instead.
Good point! If you already know where to find the content you're seeking then Google is doing nothing wrong by omitting that result.
So what if Google shapes results to hide things it doesn't want its uses to see? What harm could that possibly do? It's not like North Korea or China.
If your Aunt Tilly thinks "the internet" is what can be found through a Google search that's her own fault! It's not like very many people think that way.
People have to take responsibility for knowing what's out there! Depending on Google for searching "the internet" is just plain ignorant and lazy!
That was what I was hinting at.
All the stories say Apple is "reportedly" suing, and apparently the only source is the company making the dolls. The whole thing makes little sense. I doubt Apple has ownership of Jobs' likeness. I'm skeptical.
Is there any other kind?
Here is an article about the book. The article is free.
Yes. Unfortunately they are still full of potatoes. On the list of "common foods to not eat," fries are right up near the top.
You don't know that. Nobody knows until they're actually faced with the situation. When you're old and tired and in pain you may well have an entirely different outlook than when you're healthy and strong. If at that point science can offer something that restores vitality rather than just prolonging life, of course everyone would like that. That's not a strong statement. It's the hanging on to a painful existence that's in question.
What other things are possible?
Foxconn has more than 400,000 employees in its main center. Some people commit suicide. 17 suicides out of 400,000 is 4 and a quarter per hundred thousand. What is China's overall suicide rate? just under 14 per hundred thousand. So apparently working at Foxconn greatly reduces the suicide rate.
And presumably underwater.
Since it's to be done in 2033, presumably you started composing your post back in 2003. You must be a very slow typist.
This is about the fifth comment making this same statement. The ignorance is astounding. Corporations have shareholders. That's how it's done. Public or private has nothing to do with it.
All corporations have shareholders.
If Apple had enticed Google into developing Android for them, then intentionally pulled the plug in order to cause serious harm and distract and delay them from developing Android in different ways, but claimed to be innocent of that, then yes that Jobs statement would be meaningful.
I'm well aware. That's why I wrote "rarely." I didn't choose the word at random.
Hence my use of the word "rarely" rather than "never."
What does the article mean by the term perfectly executed? From looking at the picture, I can't even see what might have inspired such a comment. It sound like one of those "facts" thrown into make UFO/alien stories sound more credible. "But these were perfectly executed!"