Lawyers, doctors, and accountants sell advice. Banks sell mortgages. That's the difference. Try paying a CPA to look at your possible mortgage deals next time - if you go to the bother of getting offers from a few different banks and present them to the CPA and ask for advice, you'll get a very clear idea of what's in your best interests for the massive investment of a few hundred dollars.
The top half percent cutoff is less than $1M/year of income (source). The top 0.1% have a cutoff just over $2M/year - which is to say, roughly 120k households in the entire US are up in the rarefied level of making the kind of money where you don't have to go earn it every day.
Some states have points, some don't. And if you actually show up to court and speak to the prosecutor, you can usually get it moved down a notch or made into a different violation with the same fine (that doesn't go against your driving record).
Yeah, but was it ever the ticket that deterred you? Even when I was dead fucking broke, I worried far more about the effect on my insurance than the cost of the ticket. If I only had to pay tickets I'd drive like a bat out of hell with its ass on fire.
You can speed for a long, long time at 7 MPH over the limit without getting a ticket. You can do 20+ MPH over the limit if you know where the speed traps are. In over 20 years of driving I've gotten three speeding tickets, and every one told me where a speed trap was that I hadn't previously known about. And there is a huge marginal benefit to speeding.
Speeding isn't necessarily unsafe. There's a four-lane arterial near my house. Every home is set back at least 150 ft from the street, and there are sidewalks for pedestrians. It is perfectly straight and has very gentle elevation changes, but the speed limit is 35 mph. Why? Similar roads with houses right by the street have a speed limit of 40 mph, or even 45 mph. It's just bureaucratic inertia.
The top 1% starts at a household income of just over $500k, which is a nice income but by no means enough to put you in Paris Hilton territory. Even the top 0.5% starts at under $1M/year. Again, that's great money, but it's not exactly people living off generations of inherited wealth - it's mostly successful small business people, some very successful sales people, and a few doctors and lawyers. (Especially when said doctors, lawyers, sales, and business people marry each other.)
Xerox had expertise in xerographic printing and might have been able to capitalize on that underlying tech when laser printers and, yes, digital copiers came out. Kodak's underlying technology went away. They had diversified into plastics in order to have a supply of film. And profitable businesses like that are why Kodak should liquidate - when you have some businesses that will continue to be successful, some that may be able to survive as smaller enterprises, and a core business that just died, it's time to sell the pieces off and give the shareholders their money.
Kodak was a photochemicals company. Then film disappeared, and they didn't have expertise in any other areas that would enable them to keep selling something. A best-case scenario for them is liquidation.
Wait, so you're telling me that one party's nominee is a weak candidate who will probably win because his opponent will be even weaker? Where have I heard thatbefore?
Paris Hilton has managed, by virtue of having a famous family and being slutty, to make a name for herself and earn quite a bit of money. She's entertained a lot of people along the way. It has nothing to do with her intelligence (although her success at this suggests someone intelligent is behind it all), or her morality, or anything else. She is doing something that people value more highly than what nearly all of us on here do. Don't like it? Don't buy her stuff. Better still, if you think she's such a moron, and that all of her friends are, too, why don't you set up your own heiress trap, convincing them to blow their fortunes on stupid stuff you sell. Bad heirs are often the end of family money - you're just helping them along!
A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.
You mean, everyone who values their drive more than the secondary market price will use it on their project. But what happens when people who don't want or need a hard drive join the queue because they know the secondary market price is higher than the round-robin price?
You're right that I started mixing up price and cost as terms there near the end. I meant "price" throughout.
AFAICT, the vaccine is intended to work against the drug, not the receptor. Fentanyl is a totally synthetic compound - it doesn't have the opiate nucleus at all, though it does bind opioid receptors.
By "acute pain control", I mean over the course of days to weeks, e.g. after a broken bone. Fentanyl has a very short duration of action and has a low therapeutic index - the deadly dose isn't much more than the effective dose.
you implicitly accept that because you have faith that the prices will come down, and your projects are merely deferred in time.
Well, no, there are just some things I will never be able to afford. A hard drive isn't likely to be one of those things, courtesy of Moore's Law, but if it turns out that large hard drives always cost more than I want to spend, then I suppose I won't buy any large hard drives.
A fair system has to ensure that all the participants regularly get access to everything that's being traded
No, it need not do that at all. If you're talking about starvation, then I would be totally on board with providing a food subsidy to people who can't afford to eat - but I want to be honest about it. Price controls are a way for governments to screw over people who own valuable assets. Subsidies are a way to let those people reap the benefit of their good investment decisions.
Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market, where people realize that they got a hard drive worth $200 for $100. So they resell the drive, the cost to the business remains the same, but the transaction cost goes up. Great! UPS, FedEx, and the Postal Service win!
Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.
In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want. Here's a hint: the very rich can always get what they want, period. They're rich. In the worst-case scenario, they can bribe whoever is in charge of things. Hard drives, however, are both a consumer product and a business product. Business products are valued much more highly, for good reason - they are the tools you use to make money. Practically, the price increases led me to use a spare 1 TB HD to build a DVR, instead of buying a 2 TB drive. In a year or two, I'll get a 3-4 TB drive for a price I feel is fair, and in the meantime someone's company has gotten a 2-3 TB drive to use for their database.
Slashdot Mirror
The 99th percentile starts at about $6M in net worth. Again, that's great money, but you're not going to quit your day job.
Lawyers, doctors, and accountants sell advice. Banks sell mortgages. That's the difference. Try paying a CPA to look at your possible mortgage deals next time - if you go to the bother of getting offers from a few different banks and present them to the CPA and ask for advice, you'll get a very clear idea of what's in your best interests for the massive investment of a few hundred dollars.
The top half percent cutoff is less than $1M/year of income (source). The top 0.1% have a cutoff just over $2M/year - which is to say, roughly 120k households in the entire US are up in the rarefied level of making the kind of money where you don't have to go earn it every day.
Some states have points, some don't. And if you actually show up to court and speak to the prosecutor, you can usually get it moved down a notch or made into a different violation with the same fine (that doesn't go against your driving record).
Yeah, but was it ever the ticket that deterred you? Even when I was dead fucking broke, I worried far more about the effect on my insurance than the cost of the ticket. If I only had to pay tickets I'd drive like a bat out of hell with its ass on fire.
You can speed for a long, long time at 7 MPH over the limit without getting a ticket. You can do 20+ MPH over the limit if you know where the speed traps are. In over 20 years of driving I've gotten three speeding tickets, and every one told me where a speed trap was that I hadn't previously known about. And there is a huge marginal benefit to speeding.
Speeding isn't necessarily unsafe. There's a four-lane arterial near my house. Every home is set back at least 150 ft from the street, and there are sidewalks for pedestrians. It is perfectly straight and has very gentle elevation changes, but the speed limit is 35 mph. Why? Similar roads with houses right by the street have a speed limit of 40 mph, or even 45 mph. It's just bureaucratic inertia.
The top 1% starts at a household income of just over $500k, which is a nice income but by no means enough to put you in Paris Hilton territory. Even the top 0.5% starts at under $1M/year. Again, that's great money, but it's not exactly people living off generations of inherited wealth - it's mostly successful small business people, some very successful sales people, and a few doctors and lawyers. (Especially when said doctors, lawyers, sales, and business people marry each other.)
Xerox had expertise in xerographic printing and might have been able to capitalize on that underlying tech when laser printers and, yes, digital copiers came out. Kodak's underlying technology went away. They had diversified into plastics in order to have a supply of film. And profitable businesses like that are why Kodak should liquidate - when you have some businesses that will continue to be successful, some that may be able to survive as smaller enterprises, and a core business that just died, it's time to sell the pieces off and give the shareholders their money.
Kodak was a photochemicals company. Then film disappeared, and they didn't have expertise in any other areas that would enable them to keep selling something. A best-case scenario for them is liquidation.
Wait, so you're telling me that one party's nominee is a weak candidate who will probably win because his opponent will be even weaker? Where have I heard that before?
I'm the 1%, I can afford to promote it myself.
So what do you think about gay groups that out closeted gays (e.g., for their conservative political views)?
Basically.
FWIW, the Kindle Fire, the Nook Color, and the iPad are all available in contract-free form. You don't like those?
Paris Hilton has managed, by virtue of having a famous family and being slutty, to make a name for herself and earn quite a bit of money. She's entertained a lot of people along the way. It has nothing to do with her intelligence (although her success at this suggests someone intelligent is behind it all), or her morality, or anything else. She is doing something that people value more highly than what nearly all of us on here do. Don't like it? Don't buy her stuff. Better still, if you think she's such a moron, and that all of her friends are, too, why don't you set up your own heiress trap, convincing them to blow their fortunes on stupid stuff you sell. Bad heirs are often the end of family money - you're just helping them along!
A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.
You mean, everyone who values their drive more than the secondary market price will use it on their project. But what happens when people who don't want or need a hard drive join the queue because they know the secondary market price is higher than the round-robin price?
You're right that I started mixing up price and cost as terms there near the end. I meant "price" throughout.
Ah, crap, you're right. Thanks.
AFAICT, the vaccine is intended to work against the drug, not the receptor. Fentanyl is a totally synthetic compound - it doesn't have the opiate nucleus at all, though it does bind opioid receptors.
By "acute pain control", I mean over the course of days to weeks, e.g. after a broken bone. Fentanyl has a very short duration of action and has a low therapeutic index - the deadly dose isn't much more than the effective dose.
you implicitly accept that because you have faith that the prices will come down, and your projects are merely deferred in time.
Well, no, there are just some things I will never be able to afford. A hard drive isn't likely to be one of those things, courtesy of Moore's Law, but if it turns out that large hard drives always cost more than I want to spend, then I suppose I won't buy any large hard drives.
A fair system has to ensure that all the participants regularly get access to everything that's being traded
No, it need not do that at all. If you're talking about starvation, then I would be totally on board with providing a food subsidy to people who can't afford to eat - but I want to be honest about it. Price controls are a way for governments to screw over people who own valuable assets. Subsidies are a way to let those people reap the benefit of their good investment decisions.
Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market, where people realize that they got a hard drive worth $200 for $100. So they resell the drive, the cost to the business remains the same, but the transaction cost goes up. Great! UPS, FedEx, and the Postal Service win!
Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.
Because he thought it would be a great high. Duh?
Shh. We have to keep the 99%ers in the dark.
BTW, are you going to make the baby-puppy-kitten roast next weekend?
Yes, we'd be in a much worse one.
Unfair? How would you like to apportion them?
In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want. Here's a hint: the very rich can always get what they want, period. They're rich. In the worst-case scenario, they can bribe whoever is in charge of things. Hard drives, however, are both a consumer product and a business product. Business products are valued much more highly, for good reason - they are the tools you use to make money. Practically, the price increases led me to use a spare 1 TB HD to build a DVR, instead of buying a 2 TB drive. In a year or two, I'll get a 3-4 TB drive for a price I feel is fair, and in the meantime someone's company has gotten a 2-3 TB drive to use for their database.
more instances of total data loss with SSDs
There's a reason that Intel costs a little more...