Moreover, sniping won't work unless your bid is higher than the highest bid the current winner is willing to pay. So even if you snipe for $1.00 more, if the current winner was willing to pay $2.00 more, you still lose. I have no problem with sniping, and it's really the only way to go, since it avoids bidding wars.. it's a win for everyone.
Well, there are two things you're missing. First, as described in the article, the bids are shills so much as they're guaranteed sales: The seller phones someone who's only somewhat (or not at all) interested in the item and has them bid a minimum.. lower than they might possibly get, but more than whatever bids currently exist. So he still sells the item for the minimum. In effect he's gaming both the "shill" and the other bidders. Second, if the shill wins, he can still withdraw. Contrary to popular belief, it's not very difficult at all to wiggle out of a win. I've done it when I had second thoughts, and it goes like this: "I apologize for the inconvenience, but I misread the details of your item. I thought it was ____ when it was really ____. Please accept my apology and cancel my bid if possible." Done. Alternatively you can say you misclicked, etc., etc. It doesn't take much creativity.
This story should be tagged "Duh." Shill bidding has plagued eBay since day one, and there have been no significant measures taken to curb it. Of course, eBay's fees are proportional, so it's in their best interest for auctions to sell for the most they can. Additionally, sellers ARE eBay's product. If they discourage sellers, they have nothing to sell. There is no incentive whatsoever for eBay to do anything more than go through the motions of deterring shill bidding.
There are only two things eBay is good for, from a buying perspective: Buying things you can't find elsewhere, or when the "buy it now" price is below what you can find elsewhere. Fortunately, there are plenty of the latter, and several of the former, so I still find eBay useful.
an army of lawyers backed by draconian copyright laws could do to him if he released the details, but he claims to be currently looking into the details of safely releasing his details about this at the moment though.
They're starting with the small ones, because we all know what would happen if they started with the big ones.
Right.. mostly nothing, since big businesses have less of an incentive to skimp on software, a larger disincentive (public image, huge liability issues, potential employee reporting, etc), deeper pockets, AND generally get massive discounts for their volume licenses.
Small business is the logical target. They have a much smaller disincentive because they're extremely unlikely to be caught (employees usually family members and/or have a close relationship with the owner) and there's so many small businesses that they can play the odds. Additionally they have a much larger incentive to use illicit copies since they're probably pinching pennies for the first few years at least.
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments posted above. Software should be calculated as an expense of doing business; else use something free.
That's ridiculous. They're not losing sales from people who will watch a crappy cam (and I don't care how high the relative quality is -- they're still crappy). People who want to see the movie will still go to the theater to see it, and people who don't, won't, regardless of whether or not it's available as a 350MB torrent with people standing up in front of the camera and the filmer caughing into the mic. I find it much more plausible that they're losing DVD sales from DVD rips, and those aren't limited to any particular country other than the first in which it becomes available (typically the US, I'd guess). As for box office sales, I'm guessing the craptastic selection of movies has more to do with perceived "losses" than anything else. Cam's just make a good scapegoat, and if they did not exist, Hollywood would blame the war in Iraq for being too exciting, or something. "Damn you W., you're providing unfair competition for our viewing audience!"
Well, the "subsidy" is essentially financing, except the costs are spread out to everyone. Financing is attractive because it lets people spread a large purchase out into small payments. If people suddenly started wanting large upfront costs with little or no amortized costs, our banking system would pretty much collapse.
Scientists are being forced to rethink theories on why Saturn's upper atmospheric temperature is hotter than can be explained by absorbed sunlight.
While technically correct, using "hot/hotter" to describe -185C just seems wrong. Sure it's 88K over absolute 0, but still well below the freezing point of people, let alone their perception of hot.
( I was recently screwed by the taxman despite making rigorous efforts to adhere to their byzantine rules, so I have no longer have any moral qualms about helping others fight them )
I believe that everyone should pay the taxes they owe, and underreporting raises my tax burden as well as the national debt, so I do have moral qualms about helping people evade their responsibilities. Additionally, if enough people stopped paying taxes, it would adversely affect the people who depend most on tax dollars, which are usually the people most ill-equipped to care for themselves. I'm sorry for your recent incident, but the correct way to fix the process is to raise public awareness of the problem and/or elect people who will change it, not by advocating or assisting in evasion.
"I was screwed so screw them," is an immature and unproductive position.
their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.
I think you underestimate the power of the executive. While it's technically true that Congress passes legislation, it's also true that the President holds nearly equal sway. While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor. Deals are often made between the executive and legislative branches, where one side will agree to pass Bill A in exchange for the passage/inclusion of Bill/Rider B. Of course, when the same party controls both houses, as we saw for the past 6 years, the executive can essentially dictate the agenda, and any detractors risk party ostracism, which could ultimately mean career suicide. (Fortunately, following the party line turned out to be career suicide for many candidates -- although that sets the stage for the pendulum to swing back the other way, perhaps sooner than the Democrats would prefer). The only time the President's agenda doesn't much matter is when the Congress overwhelmingly disagrees, and in more cases than not, that merely results in deadlock.
Aside from explicit powers, the President controls the bully pulpit, which means he can and does set the topic of public discussion. Once voters are talking about an issue, Congress will often have to act or risk losing face.
Granted, your point was that other issues are more pressing to you, and more relevant to the envisioned role of the office, but the power of the President to set the legislative agenda is not insignificant.
It would affect my vote, absolutely, but it's not the only metric, especially when one gets the sense she's merely paying lip service to the idea. Her pro-censorship stance on "violent" videogames, for example, along with draconian gun control measures, are two reasons why she won't get my vote. Additionally, I try not to let a politician's personality affect my opinion, but her oft-sneering demeanor really irks me, and I don't particularly want it to be the face of our nation. Of course, it would be better than a bumbling, hard-headed, trigger-happy "liberator," but it would be nice if there was a good candidate, rather than one who's merely "better than the other." Granted, my definition of good is likely different from everyone else's, but it seems like the past 5 elections or so have been defined merely as choosing the more palletable of two distateful candidates.
Additionally, you're subsidizing the channels you don't watch, which makes your own channel of choice cheaper. The reason you can sit down and watch SciFi Fridays isn't because it's popular enough to fly on its on merits, but because all the people who don't watch it chip in a little anyway. When you remove the distributed costs per channel or per show, it's reasonable to expect the individual cost to increase.
That said, I still think current prices are overinflated. As it stands, only the most popular shows are offered online anyway, and I find it difficult to believe that the costs are anywhere near 1420 times higher through online distribution than through traditional methods. Especially since they're ALREADY making the advertising revenue. Eventually people will realize that it's costing the price of a basic cable subscription just to download their 5 favorite weekly shows in lower quality.
What would help matters significantly is if someone provided an easy to use interface for purchasing and viewing shows from a HTPC. If shows could be downloaded in HD right from Windows Media Center, for example, and stored in a logical (and modifiable) folder hierarchy, the demand for WMC would surely increase. Bonus points if they provided it in a DRM-free container (fat chance), although they could probably gain a substantial user base as long as they provided an easy means of transfer to a majority of portable players, including transcoding/burning to CD, DVD, and emerging formats like BR and HDDVD. Of course, none of that is likely to happen anytime soon.
they can't punish those acting directly under the orders of the President.
Turns out there's a precedent for that as well. Everyone in the military is told that they are expected to refuse an unlawful order. Of course, these people aren't even in the military, so their case is even weaker since they could resign at any time.
Is anyone else sick of seeing chip makers try to speculate about the merits and performance capabilities of major metropolitain areas? As if anyone could outperform a people with the power of clovers on their side!
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, sniping won't work unless your bid is higher than the highest bid the current winner is willing to pay. So even if you snipe for $1.00 more, if the current winner was willing to pay $2.00 more, you still lose. I have no problem with sniping, and it's really the only way to go, since it avoids bidding wars.. it's a win for everyone.
Well, there are two things you're missing. First, as described in the article, the bids are shills so much as they're guaranteed sales: The seller phones someone who's only somewhat (or not at all) interested in the item and has them bid a minimum.. lower than they might possibly get, but more than whatever bids currently exist. So he still sells the item for the minimum. In effect he's gaming both the "shill" and the other bidders. Second, if the shill wins, he can still withdraw. Contrary to popular belief, it's not very difficult at all to wiggle out of a win. I've done it when I had second thoughts, and it goes like this: "I apologize for the inconvenience, but I misread the details of your item. I thought it was ____ when it was really ____. Please accept my apology and cancel my bid if possible." Done. Alternatively you can say you misclicked, etc., etc. It doesn't take much creativity.
This story should be tagged "Duh." Shill bidding has plagued eBay since day one, and there have been no significant measures taken to curb it. Of course, eBay's fees are proportional, so it's in their best interest for auctions to sell for the most they can. Additionally, sellers ARE eBay's product. If they discourage sellers, they have nothing to sell. There is no incentive whatsoever for eBay to do anything more than go through the motions of deterring shill bidding.
There are only two things eBay is good for, from a buying perspective: Buying things you can't find elsewhere, or when the "buy it now" price is below what you can find elsewhere. Fortunately, there are plenty of the latter, and several of the former, so I still find eBay useful.
Back off, Greenland!
I'm a motherfscking PMP, you insensitive clod.
an army of lawyers backed by draconian copyright laws could do to him if he released the details, but he claims to be currently looking into the details of safely releasing his details about this at the moment though.
Most. Awkward. Sentence. EVAR!
They're starting with the small ones, because we all know what would happen if they started with the big ones.
Right.. mostly nothing, since big businesses have less of an incentive to skimp on software, a larger disincentive (public image, huge liability issues, potential employee reporting, etc), deeper pockets, AND generally get massive discounts for their volume licenses.
Small business is the logical target. They have a much smaller disincentive because they're extremely unlikely to be caught (employees usually family members and/or have a close relationship with the owner) and there's so many small businesses that they can play the odds. Additionally they have a much larger incentive to use illicit copies since they're probably pinching pennies for the first few years at least.
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments posted above. Software should be calculated as an expense of doing business; else use something free.
Probably because it was an orchestrated effort to manipulate the rankings for a certain search phrase? Ends and means...
That's ridiculous. They're not losing sales from people who will watch a crappy cam (and I don't care how high the relative quality is -- they're still crappy). People who want to see the movie will still go to the theater to see it, and people who don't, won't, regardless of whether or not it's available as a 350MB torrent with people standing up in front of the camera and the filmer caughing into the mic. I find it much more plausible that they're losing DVD sales from DVD rips, and those aren't limited to any particular country other than the first in which it becomes available (typically the US, I'd guess). As for box office sales, I'm guessing the craptastic selection of movies has more to do with perceived "losses" than anything else. Cam's just make a good scapegoat, and if they did not exist, Hollywood would blame the war in Iraq for being too exciting, or something. "Damn you W., you're providing unfair competition for our viewing audience!"
Well, the "subsidy" is essentially financing, except the costs are spread out to everyone. Financing is attractive because it lets people spread a large purchase out into small payments. If people suddenly started wanting large upfront costs with little or no amortized costs, our banking system would pretty much collapse.
How does one about getting a job in games journalism again?
By turning that into 10 paragraphs that keep people reading, basically.
Send me your laptop, and I'll let you know.
"Sounds like a conspiracy from the ADA."
"That's just the chocolate chip meth cookies talking..."
"That's what they want you to think!"
You would need about ten of these donuts to experience some nasty side effects. You would have to try really really hard to do yourself in with this.
Clearly our definitions of "try really really hard" are vastly different.
Scientists are being forced to rethink theories on why Saturn's upper atmospheric temperature is hotter than can be explained by absorbed sunlight.
While technically correct, using "hot/hotter" to describe -185C just seems wrong. Sure it's 88K over absolute 0, but still well below the freezing point of people, let alone their perception of hot.
Sorry to be pedantic here, but kelvin is not capitalized, only its symbol, K. It's minor, but important to know in some circles.
That's probably because a curry hotdog is called a soft link in India.
Ok, I just made that up.
( I was recently screwed by the taxman despite making rigorous efforts to adhere to their byzantine rules, so I have no longer have any moral qualms about helping others fight them )
I believe that everyone should pay the taxes they owe, and underreporting raises my tax burden as well as the national debt, so I do have moral qualms about helping people evade their responsibilities. Additionally, if enough people stopped paying taxes, it would adversely affect the people who depend most on tax dollars, which are usually the people most ill-equipped to care for themselves. I'm sorry for your recent incident, but the correct way to fix the process is to raise public awareness of the problem and/or elect people who will change it, not by advocating or assisting in evasion.
"I was screwed so screw them," is an immature and unproductive position.
their stand on a whole host of other things that Congress gets to determine doesn't matter.
I think you underestimate the power of the executive. While it's technically true that Congress passes legislation, it's also true that the President holds nearly equal sway. While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor. Deals are often made between the executive and legislative branches, where one side will agree to pass Bill A in exchange for the passage/inclusion of Bill/Rider B. Of course, when the same party controls both houses, as we saw for the past 6 years, the executive can essentially dictate the agenda, and any detractors risk party ostracism, which could ultimately mean career suicide. (Fortunately, following the party line turned out to be career suicide for many candidates -- although that sets the stage for the pendulum to swing back the other way, perhaps sooner than the Democrats would prefer). The only time the President's agenda doesn't much matter is when the Congress overwhelmingly disagrees, and in more cases than not, that merely results in deadlock.
Aside from explicit powers, the President controls the bully pulpit, which means he can and does set the topic of public discussion. Once voters are talking about an issue, Congress will often have to act or risk losing face.
Granted, your point was that other issues are more pressing to you, and more relevant to the envisioned role of the office, but the power of the President to set the legislative agenda is not insignificant.
It would affect my vote, absolutely, but it's not the only metric, especially when one gets the sense she's merely paying lip service to the idea. Her pro-censorship stance on "violent" videogames, for example, along with draconian gun control measures, are two reasons why she won't get my vote. Additionally, I try not to let a politician's personality affect my opinion, but her oft-sneering demeanor really irks me, and I don't particularly want it to be the face of our nation. Of course, it would be better than a bumbling, hard-headed, trigger-happy "liberator," but it would be nice if there was a good candidate, rather than one who's merely "better than the other." Granted, my definition of good is likely different from everyone else's, but it seems like the past 5 elections or so have been defined merely as choosing the more palletable of two distateful candidates.
Additionally, you're subsidizing the channels you don't watch, which makes your own channel of choice cheaper. The reason you can sit down and watch SciFi Fridays isn't because it's popular enough to fly on its on merits, but because all the people who don't watch it chip in a little anyway. When you remove the distributed costs per channel or per show, it's reasonable to expect the individual cost to increase.
That said, I still think current prices are overinflated. As it stands, only the most popular shows are offered online anyway, and I find it difficult to believe that the costs are anywhere near 1420 times higher through online distribution than through traditional methods. Especially since they're ALREADY making the advertising revenue. Eventually people will realize that it's costing the price of a basic cable subscription just to download their 5 favorite weekly shows in lower quality.
What would help matters significantly is if someone provided an easy to use interface for purchasing and viewing shows from a HTPC. If shows could be downloaded in HD right from Windows Media Center, for example, and stored in a logical (and modifiable) folder hierarchy, the demand for WMC would surely increase. Bonus points if they provided it in a DRM-free container (fat chance), although they could probably gain a substantial user base as long as they provided an easy means of transfer to a majority of portable players, including transcoding/burning to CD, DVD, and emerging formats like BR and HDDVD. Of course, none of that is likely to happen anytime soon.
they can't punish those acting directly under the orders of the President.
Turns out there's a precedent for that as well. Everyone in the military is told that they are expected to refuse an unlawful order. Of course, these people aren't even in the military, so their case is even weaker since they could resign at any time.
If you want Al Quida to nail your enemy, then just put a fuzzy tarp on his/her roof.
Yeah, I'm sure that's how it works. "This structure is indeterminate.. Let us blow it to pieces without investigating further!"
Is anyone else sick of seeing chip makers try to speculate about the merits and performance capabilities of major metropolitain areas? As if anyone could outperform a people with the power of clovers on their side!
...Back Off!