They are saying that the total weight of the galaxy is 1 billion solar masses. They probably don't have it down to the gram, but an accuracy of 1 solar mass would be a huge accomplishment.
It's kind of like when someone says that their mass is equal to X kilos, they don't mean that they are composed of X weights stored in France.
Massachusetts is hardly a state that leads the way in progressive economic thinking. How is the profit from buying in bulk and reselling at a mark up "unearned". The free market in this case yields a very optimal solution. The vendor of the product, (the team if you will) has a product being entertainment, wanting to sell the most amount possible reliably they price the tickets accordingly. People who have time on their hands line up immediately for these tickets. Others buy tickets in hope that in the future they will be worth more. They hold these tickets so that near the event there are still tickets available for people willing to spend more money to finance the purchase, holding and delivery of the tickets. It is rarely capitalists that complain about "scalping" it is usually "fans" who don't wish to pay the price for a ticket at a later date.
With out the gouging the tickets would be unavailable for purchase. Thus you would have NO TICKETS. Fans don't "get the shaft" they get tickets at a price they are willing to pay.
It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.
Society HAS already developed around the free exchange of the arts. Look at art for sale in coffee shops. Music at various venues, and of course high-brow art galleries selling painting for millions of dollars. Of course I mean free as in freedom and not beer.
It's not bad for consumers. You can still sell Acer's laptop at $50 off. Or, you can make your own and since ALL THE PRICES WILL GO UP (lol) you will have plenty of margin. Some companies want to produce well supported products that retailers will support, by having price floors there is margin to provide this support, and incentive for the company to provide it. Also, it can use the margin from the price floor to offer rebates on competitors products. Ultimately, a price floor is one choice among the many for a business model, the price floor will only work if it works in consumers favor else they will switch to products that don't have such a floor.
Mores are manners and customs in this context. Typically, mores are closley related to morals as the mores of a society greatly shape the morals of the individuals in a society.
Why should they? They don't have a monopoly on oil. If one company charges too much you can buy it from someone else, if you don't like that you can get a bunch of people together and start your own oil company. But then you'll find that the price charged is closely related to the price it costs to produce. You may find this interesting but the price of a barrel of oil is closely related to the price of a gallon of gasoline. The easiest way to reduce the price of oil would be to reduce the taxes on it.
If the price of corn goes up all they have to go is stop eating corn and eat something else.
It's not unethical behavior. The advertisers pay for the magazine just as much as you do. (Actually, they pay for it much more than you do). The magazine must balance the decreased value to readers against the increased value to advertisers in order to maximize profit. There are magazines that are purely reader funded and thus do not have multiple sources of income to balance between.
The first card I will play is Silent Truncation of Data. This card renders your opponents data useless with out him knowing. Works against all known datatypes in MySQL.
It is ineffective if your opponent had already played "Upgrade to Postgresql".
For it to be a straw man argument you would have to prove that a fallacy exists and has been attributed to the "straw man". The parent's argument might be a "straw man" but with out refuting his argument it is not. Since I have refuted or at least proposed a refutation regarding your argument about, it could be argued that you are refuting using a straw man argument vis a vi by refuting his argument by a straw man straw man.
Yes. Clearly the Founding Fathers were never under the threat of a rag tag bunch of disorganized fanatics. They were merely under the threat of one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. I would hazard a guess that the threat the British Empire posed to the United States in 1776 was much greater than Al Qaeda could ever hope to be.
Consider two things, A) Foreign terrorists will not have a REAL ID since they are not citizens, B) Domestic terrorists are already here. Both of these problems are not solved by a REAL ID.
Also, everyone in the United States still lives in a country that has not been attacked by "weapons of mass destruction".
I forgot, once the report is done, do a white paper or case-study on how much money they saved after changed after firing key people in the first month. Neglect to mention that the company crashed a burned 2 years later.
I would start a consulting firm, get the CEO to hire your consulting firm. Spend a lot of time compiling a bunch of numbers, then because the other companies won't want their data revealed by name sort them into averages based on Fortune 20, Fortune 100, Fortune 500.
Make up an "average" for these three sets in which your company does better in most metrics, take the $250,000 you got from this consulting gig and live on it while you go around with your initial report selling it to other companies.
This idea is so stupid and useless that only a consulting firm would offer this service.
Just like investment of capital ruined the roots of the automotive industry. However, cars are much cheaper now than they would have been being produced one by one in a garage.
The roots of any industry or technique usually suck compared to results after the industry has been fully capitalized.
So, yes it will probably ruin the roots, but its a good thing.
Perhaps parents could make these decisions for their children that could reflect the values and beliefs of the parents. Many parent's find the content rules by default too lax and still manage to keep their children from seeing it in any meaningful way. Some of my classmates had never seen "The Simpsons". If parents don't wish to take the time to raise their children according to their standards perhaps their standards and values are less valuable than they would initially think.
It's rare that a business that delivers value to it's customer that exceeds the cost of running the business has money problems. Likely Digital Home mainly gets page views by people who are not likely to convert on seeing the ad (informed consumers tend to fall for the hype) and the same customers don't see the value in subscribing to such a service, or wish to donate.
How is a television show getting cancelled any different than going out of business anyways?
A Television show likely employs many more people who will get equally laid off when it is cancelled than Digital Home. How TV generally works is that a production company produces the show and then sells it. This is why you will see shows sometimes move between networks. To insulate the investors a company is usually formed on its own to produce the show. Once the show is cancelled and a new buyer cannot be found the business is generally ended.
If you can't find a market for your services I'd suggest producing a new service rather than whining about ratings systems. There is a lot of money out there, if there is real value certainly someone will buy it. (Whether via advertising or via subscription)
It's not restraint of trade. They simply don't offer the product for sale anymore. Why should a company not be allowed to discontinue a product? If a more satisfying product is offered by another company consumers will simply migrate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with a national ID card if people want one.
When people are denied freedom of movement by the gov't when they don't have one is when it becomes a problem.
Also, exactly which problem is this designed to solve? And how is this the least intrusive method of the gov't achieving its goals.
In 2014, about 40% of the US population will be over 50. Even better, Osama Bin Laden himself would be excluded from this requirement.
I hope this isn't a troll...
They are saying that the total weight of the galaxy is 1 billion solar masses. They probably don't have it down to the gram, but an accuracy of 1 solar mass would be a huge accomplishment.
It's kind of like when someone says that their mass is equal to X kilos, they don't mean that they are composed of X weights stored in France.
Massachusetts is hardly a state that leads the way in progressive economic thinking. How is the profit from buying in bulk and reselling at a mark up "unearned". The free market in this case yields a very optimal solution. The vendor of the product, (the team if you will) has a product being entertainment, wanting to sell the most amount possible reliably they price the tickets accordingly. People who have time on their hands line up immediately for these tickets. Others buy tickets in hope that in the future they will be worth more. They hold these tickets so that near the event there are still tickets available for people willing to spend more money to finance the purchase, holding and delivery of the tickets. It is rarely capitalists that complain about "scalping" it is usually "fans" who don't wish to pay the price for a ticket at a later date.
With out the gouging the tickets would be unavailable for purchase. Thus you would have NO TICKETS. Fans don't "get the shaft" they get tickets at a price they are willing to pay.
It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.
Society HAS already developed around the free exchange of the arts. Look at art for sale in coffee shops. Music at various venues, and of course high-brow art galleries selling painting for millions of dollars. Of course I mean free as in freedom and not beer.
Exactly how is "free shit lolz" exchange?
Think about how much the war in Iraq is adding to the economy.
LOX goes together with Liquid Hydrogen to make rocket fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_oxygen
It's not bad for consumers. You can still sell Acer's laptop at $50 off. Or, you can make your own and since ALL THE PRICES WILL GO UP (lol) you will have plenty of margin. Some companies want to produce well supported products that retailers will support, by having price floors there is margin to provide this support, and incentive for the company to provide it. Also, it can use the margin from the price floor to offer rebates on competitors products. Ultimately, a price floor is one choice among the many for a business model, the price floor will only work if it works in consumers favor else they will switch to products that don't have such a floor.
Who will watch the ombudsmen?
Soviet Russia, it worked out great! I can't believe more people didn't move there.
Mores are manners and customs in this context. Typically, mores are closley related to morals as the mores of a society greatly shape the morals of the individuals in a society.
Why should they? They don't have a monopoly on oil. If one company charges too much you can buy it from someone else, if you don't like that you can get a bunch of people together and start your own oil company. But then you'll find that the price charged is closely related to the price it costs to produce. You may find this interesting but the price of a barrel of oil is closely related to the price of a gallon of gasoline. The easiest way to reduce the price of oil would be to reduce the taxes on it.
If the price of corn goes up all they have to go is stop eating corn and eat something else.
It's not unethical behavior. The advertisers pay for the magazine just as much as you do. (Actually, they pay for it much more than you do). The magazine must balance the decreased value to readers against the increased value to advertisers in order to maximize profit. There are magazines that are purely reader funded and thus do not have multiple sources of income to balance between.
The first card I will play is Silent Truncation of Data. This card renders your opponents data useless with out him knowing. Works against all known datatypes in MySQL.
It is ineffective if your opponent had already played "Upgrade to Postgresql".
For it to be a straw man argument you would have to prove that a fallacy exists and has been attributed to the "straw man". The parent's argument might be a "straw man" but with out refuting his argument it is not. Since I have refuted or at least proposed a refutation regarding your argument about, it could be argued that you are refuting using a straw man argument vis a vi by refuting his argument by a straw man straw man.
They would at most be guilty of possession of stolen property, however, the law exempts them from this when they take ID and write down who sold them.
Yeah. Didn't GM do the exact same thing in the early 90s? Record profits. Massive layoffs.
Yes. Clearly the Founding Fathers were never under the threat of a rag tag bunch of disorganized fanatics. They were merely under the threat of one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. I would hazard a guess that the threat the British Empire posed to the United States in 1776 was much greater than Al Qaeda could ever hope to be.
Consider two things, A) Foreign terrorists will not have a REAL ID since they are not citizens, B) Domestic terrorists are already here. Both of these problems are not solved by a REAL ID.
Also, everyone in the United States still lives in a country that has not been attacked by "weapons of mass destruction".
I forgot, once the report is done, do a white paper or case-study on how much money they saved after changed after firing key people in the first month. Neglect to mention that the company crashed a burned 2 years later.
I would start a consulting firm, get the CEO to hire your consulting firm. Spend a lot of time compiling a bunch of numbers, then because the other companies won't want their data revealed by name sort them into averages based on Fortune 20, Fortune 100, Fortune 500.
Make up an "average" for these three sets in which your company does better in most metrics, take the $250,000 you got from this consulting gig and live on it while you go around with your initial report selling it to other companies.
This idea is so stupid and useless that only a consulting firm would offer this service.
Just like investment of capital ruined the roots of the automotive industry. However, cars are much cheaper now than they would have been being produced one by one in a garage. The roots of any industry or technique usually suck compared to results after the industry has been fully capitalized. So, yes it will probably ruin the roots, but its a good thing.
Perhaps parents could make these decisions for their children that could reflect the values and beliefs of the parents. Many parent's find the content rules by default too lax and still manage to keep their children from seeing it in any meaningful way. Some of my classmates had never seen "The Simpsons". If parents don't wish to take the time to raise their children according to their standards perhaps their standards and values are less valuable than they would initially think.
It's rare that a business that delivers value to it's customer that exceeds the cost of running the business has money problems. Likely Digital Home mainly gets page views by people who are not likely to convert on seeing the ad (informed consumers tend to fall for the hype) and the same customers don't see the value in subscribing to such a service, or wish to donate.
How is a television show getting cancelled any different than going out of business anyways?
A Television show likely employs many more people who will get equally laid off when it is cancelled than Digital Home. How TV generally works is that a production company produces the show and then sells it. This is why you will see shows sometimes move between networks. To insulate the investors a company is usually formed on its own to produce the show. Once the show is cancelled and a new buyer cannot be found the business is generally ended.
If you can't find a market for your services I'd suggest producing a new service rather than whining about ratings systems. There is a lot of money out there, if there is real value certainly someone will buy it. (Whether via advertising or via subscription)
It's not restraint of trade. They simply don't offer the product for sale anymore. Why should a company not be allowed to discontinue a product? If a more satisfying product is offered by another company consumers will simply migrate.