Increased demand raises prices, not lowers it. Economics 101.
This is only true over the short term. Given a fixed supply and increased demand, prices will rise. In the long term, competitors will enter the market and reduce the price to roughly the equivalent of what the product costs to produce. As I pointed out before, once the initial costs of R&D and capital expenditures are accounted for, the price will continue to decrease. If there is no demand for better products, only increased demand for the same old same old, competitors will look for ways to further reduce production costs, causing prices to decrease even more. So in the long term, increased demand results in lower prices, not higher prices. This trend will continue unless there is some other factor limiting supply (for example, higher labor costs, higher materials costs, a shortage of key components).
Old inventory, which companies try to get rid of below manufacturing cost to recover at least some of their initial investment, drives the price even lower.
If the $8 watch was only the result of production overruns, the price would not remain low permanently--eventually some competitors would be driven out of the market and the price would go higher. It has nothing to do with the availability of more expensive watches. But since I can get an $8 watch any day, it must be true that manufacturers can actually make profit selling watches that cheaply.
Cheap electronics are cheap because the technology has been around so long it's been optimized to the moon and back. There isn't much more optimization you can squeeze out of it to lower the cost more than they already are. So increased competition in the market for this stuff wouldn't lower the price much.
True with watches, not true with computers. No one buys 1997 technology with computers, because they can't run today's software, can't read the latest MS Word files, can't render the latest Web pages. The bottom-of-the-line computer is a constantly moving target, so the price never actually reaches equilibrium. If everyone settled on 1997 technology, the price would go *much* lower than it is now.
No, this is not true. Cheap electronics are not a welfare program. I can buy an $8 watch or a $20 PDA because it's using standard circuitry and mass-produced with cheap Malaysian labor. In fact, if demand for cheap electronics was higher, competition would eventually drive the prices even lower. If everyone was willing to settle for 1997 computer technology, then slow computers with low res monitors and ancient OSs would be selling at Wal-Mart for $99.
What drives the price up for new technology is R&D, plus the up-front capital expense of building new plants to build the new stuff. Once all that's been done, the price drops down, down, down, and yesterday's technology gets cheaper and cheaper.
There's no DRM with AAC either. Apple added its own layer of DRM, "Fairplay" onto the AAC format. Of course that doesn't mean that the DVD-Audio people won't do the same thing.
That's true--and you REALLY get ripped off if you buy this "album" one track at a time. 99 tracks for $9.99 if you buy the whole thing, but $98.01 if you but them individually.
Well, I don't really care whether the TiVo is technically "on" or "off," but it's a problem leaving the TiVo in non-standby mode, because if somehow my receiver doesn't get turned off, after a while the menu on TiVo reverts to live TV, and suddenly I've got the Fab Five blaring across the living room with bad "gay" puns.
... There's no OFF button! To turn the damn thing off, I have to navigate down six lines of a menu to "standby." Sure I've programmed my universal remote to do it for me, but if it's not quite pointed directly at the unit, or if the batteries are running low... grrrrr!
If Miami motorists were to see a turn signal, there's no telling how they'd react. They could become alarmed and start shooting.
Having seen that South Florida voters -- people who have yet to figure out how an automobile turn signal works -- were baffled by pieces of cardboard, our leaders decided to confront them with . . . computers!
Where do you get your windows boxes? You're paying $2000 per machine? I can get you them for five hun-- I mean $1500 apiece. Just post your name, address, and credit card in this thread and I'll send them along;)
the quote is a little out of context. Gosling was talking about a license for six computers. He was still exaggerating, but not as much as it seems. For a small business, whether it's $2000 or $4000, it's still a lot of money. If all you need is to create text documents and spreadsheets, open office makes a hell of a lot of sense. Especially if you're running windows, so you can run it natively.
I taught first year composition last year, and I actually used slashdot journals to host the discussion portion of my class. You can also take a look at Kairosnews for some more ideas. In particular, check out the blogs and CMSs topic. Good luck!
All I was saying is that how the instructor decides to award points in such a case is, in fact, up to the particular instructor. Different instructors, I would suggest, award different grades for the identical response.
In math, just as in composition, when you get to the edge of the discipline, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. In fact, a math professor may choose to give a poor grade to an inelegant but "correct" proof.
As you have pointed out, the best math proofs don't simply use equations, but also use prose to help guide the reader through the argument. Here we see the distinction between composition and math blur even more.
Actually, no it's not--it's just that each composition instructor has different emphases in class (as do all instructors in all disciplines). Some are more concerned with organization, others with transitions, others with grammar and style. You need to learn the peculiarities of your instructor and write with them in mind. In fact, the best composition instructors will teach this--how to adapt your writing for a particular audience.
Glad I studied something with math in it. YOU KNOW when your math doesn't work right.
True story: a friend of mine was taking a math course, and the test required a proof. She had no clue how to do it, so she worked forward from the starting formula as far as she could go. Then she worked backward from the result. She still couldn't connect the steps in the middle, but she left her incomplete proof for "partial credit." Instructor gave her an "A."
Let's suppose, for a moment, that someone actually did shoot one of these things down. What would happen? The blimp would gradually sink to the ground. The hole would be patched, and the blimp would be sent back up to do its job. Downtime < 24 hours. Better than many DSL providers, I'd bet.
But, of course, people wouldn't do this, any more than they would do a hundred or a thousand other rather ineffective acts of terrorism. You could use the same high powered rifle and shoot down hi-tension electrical wires, or punch a hole in a natural gas pipeline. People crazy enough to do this sort of thing would prefer to do something more destructive than denying internet service for a day or two.
90% of my e-mail is not spam. I get about 15-20 spam a day, and 150-200 e-mails a day. No, I don't have that many friends; I'm just on a lot of listservs. A bunch of nerds isn't exactly a valid sample for testing the 40 percent number. It might seem low to you, but think of all the corporate suits e-mailing the latest marketing figures back and forth.
I just now visited the equifax site. There's a single 800 number for all four major credit reporting agencies: 1-888-5-OPT OUT
It's a little scary entering your SSN into a computerized database, but I figured these guys already have a lot more on me, so I went ahead and did it. Hope it works.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only true over the short term. Given a fixed supply and increased demand, prices will rise. In the long term, competitors will enter the market and reduce the price to roughly the equivalent of what the product costs to produce. As I pointed out before, once the initial costs of R&D and capital expenditures are accounted for, the price will continue to decrease. If there is no demand for better products, only increased demand for the same old same old, competitors will look for ways to further reduce production costs, causing prices to decrease even more. So in the long term, increased demand results in lower prices, not higher prices. This trend will continue unless there is some other factor limiting supply (for example, higher labor costs, higher materials costs, a shortage of key components).
Old inventory, which companies try to get rid of below manufacturing cost to recover at least some of their initial investment, drives the price even lower.
If the $8 watch was only the result of production overruns, the price would not remain low permanently--eventually some competitors would be driven out of the market and the price would go higher. It has nothing to do with the availability of more expensive watches. But since I can get an $8 watch any day, it must be true that manufacturers can actually make profit selling watches that cheaply.
Cheap electronics are cheap because the technology has been around so long it's been optimized to the moon and back. There isn't much more optimization you can squeeze out of it to lower the cost more than they already are. So increased competition in the market for this stuff wouldn't lower the price much.
True with watches, not true with computers. No one buys 1997 technology with computers, because they can't run today's software, can't read the latest MS Word files, can't render the latest Web pages. The bottom-of-the-line computer is a constantly moving target, so the price never actually reaches equilibrium. If everyone settled on 1997 technology, the price would go *much* lower than it is now.
No, this is not true. Cheap electronics are not a welfare program. I can buy an $8 watch or a $20 PDA because it's using standard circuitry and mass-produced with cheap Malaysian labor. In fact, if demand for cheap electronics was higher, competition would eventually drive the prices even lower. If everyone was willing to settle for 1997 computer technology, then slow computers with low res monitors and ancient OSs would be selling at Wal-Mart for $99. What drives the price up for new technology is R&D, plus the up-front capital expense of building new plants to build the new stuff. Once all that's been done, the price drops down, down, down, and yesterday's technology gets cheaper and cheaper.
There's no DRM with AAC either. Apple added its own layer of DRM, "Fairplay" onto the AAC format. Of course that doesn't mean that the DVD-Audio people won't do the same thing.
If you're into that sort of thing, that is.
Well, I don't really care whether the TiVo is technically "on" or "off," but it's a problem leaving the TiVo in non-standby mode, because if somehow my receiver doesn't get turned off, after a while the menu on TiVo reverts to live TV, and suddenly I've got the Fab Five blaring across the living room with bad "gay" puns.
... There's no OFF button! To turn the damn thing off, I have to navigate down six lines of a menu to "standby." Sure I've programmed my universal remote to do it for me, but if it's not quite pointed directly at the unit, or if the batteries are running low... grrrrr!
I was thinking of This guy.
Where do you get your windows boxes? You're paying $2000 per machine? I can get you them for five hun-- I mean $1500 apiece. Just post your name, address, and credit card in this thread and I'll send them along ;)
the quote is a little out of context. Gosling was talking about a license for six computers. He was still exaggerating, but not as much as it seems. For a small business, whether it's $2000 or $4000, it's still a lot of money. If all you need is to create text documents and spreadsheets, open office makes a hell of a lot of sense. Especially if you're running windows, so you can run it natively.
How many is "several"? Six? Then one of six would be, what 17 percent? That's pretty close to 19 percent.
Who needs a lousy space station? It's TV science, with no practical value that couldn't be achieved much cheaper and with no loss of life.
here.
Ummm... Put 1 gig in each of its 8 slots?
I taught first year composition last year, and I actually used slashdot journals to host the discussion portion of my class. You can also take a look at Kairosnews for some more ideas. In particular, check out the blogs and CMSs topic. Good luck!
Sure--
All I was saying is that how the instructor decides to award points in such a case is, in fact, up to the particular instructor. Different instructors, I would suggest, award different grades for the identical response.
In math, just as in composition, when you get to the edge of the discipline, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. In fact, a math professor may choose to give a poor grade to an inelegant but "correct" proof.
As you have pointed out, the best math proofs don't simply use equations, but also use prose to help guide the reader through the argument. Here we see the distinction between composition and math blur even more.
Actually, no it's not--it's just that each composition instructor has different emphases in class (as do all instructors in all disciplines). Some are more concerned with organization, others with transitions, others with grammar and style. You need to learn the peculiarities of your instructor and write with them in mind. In fact, the best composition instructors will teach this--how to adapt your writing for a particular audience.
Glad I studied something with math in it. YOU KNOW when your math doesn't work right.
True story: a friend of mine was taking a math course, and the test required a proof. She had no clue how to do it, so she worked forward from the starting formula as far as she could go. Then she worked backward from the result. She still couldn't connect the steps in the middle, but she left her incomplete proof for "partial credit." Instructor gave her an "A."
So much for "knowing" when you have the "answer."
Yes, I do. Just one of them, though. That's plenty.
Why? Read their press release.
But, of course, people wouldn't do this, any more than they would do a hundred or a thousand other rather ineffective acts of terrorism. You could use the same high powered rifle and shoot down hi-tension electrical wires, or punch a hole in a natural gas pipeline. People crazy enough to do this sort of thing would prefer to do something more destructive than denying internet service for a day or two.
Actually, business reply costs more than $.37--depending on volume, it can cost as much as a buck or two.
90% of my e-mail is not spam. I get about 15-20 spam a day, and 150-200 e-mails a day. No, I don't have that many friends; I'm just on a lot of listservs. A bunch of nerds isn't exactly a valid sample for testing the 40 percent number. It might seem low to you, but think of all the corporate suits e-mailing the latest marketing figures back and forth.
You can also select file--new window, then click and drag the link from the old window to the new window.
It's a little scary entering your SSN into a computerized database, but I figured these guys already have a lot more on me, so I went ahead and did it. Hope it works.