Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer.
I said no such thing. I simply explained that oligopolies have different market dynamics than competitive markets. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You would be incorrect in thinking that someone selling a loss leader to grab market share isn't necessarily long-term viable. For instance, Microsoft lowered the price of a web browser to $0, but could continue to afford to do that long-term because their other businesses could pay for the loss.
I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me?
Here's the explanation you asked for: 1. Oligopolies behave differently than competitive markets. This is because the sellers all to some degree have the ability to have a significant effect on the supply curve. In other words, the supply-demand rules you learned in Econ 101 don't exactly apply. 2. Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.
The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.
Absolutely I prefer him as Bester. But you can't ignore his work as Chekov, since that more-or-less made his career. Plus he got a couple of Saturn awards as Chekov.
Frankly, Bester's greatest moment was when he's sitting down telling Garibaldi exactly what has happened to him. He's so deliciously evil.
Libertarianism is at the very least a consistent philosophy.
It shares some key characteristics with conservatism. They both will push for: - reducing taxes as much as possible - reducing government regulation of business - promote private ownership of what are currently at least partially public resources (e.g. roads, schools, or navigable waterways)
Now I will note that all of these issues have to do with economic concerns, and that libertarians generally want no part of the social issues that conservatives will make a big deal of.
"When they talk about drugs they donâ(TM)t talk about all of them, thatâ(TM)s the problem. They donâ(TM)t mention coffee -- the low end of the speed spectrum, I grant you. But there are coffee freaks. And theyâ(TM)re walking around, nobody worried about it or anything. Mrs. Olsen never tells you about that mild speed lift, you know, because sheâ(TM)s shooting freeze-dried Folgerâ(TM)s."
Luxury. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down at bunker, and pay bunker owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
My reaction to this was similar: We've gone from having in many cases 0 ways to get at these "orphaned" works to having 1 way to get at them. How is that not an improvement? Yes, having 2 or more would be better. But 1 is a heck of a lot better than 0.
Also good would be something similar to what Lessig et al have been arguing for years: if no one is profiting from it, why not put it under CC or into public domain?
No, really. That's what civilized people do is give up a portion of their rights for the protection of knowing that everyone else has given up those rights too. For instance, I've given up my right to shoot you without nasty consequences unless I have a really really good reason. I'm somewhat protected by that because I know that you've also given up that same right, so you're less likely to just open fire for the heck of it. It ain't perfect by any means, but it's a bargain that's often worth making.
The only big net winner in WWII was USA, and that only because the war did not go anywhere near it.
Minor historical point here: While the US was considerably less wrecked than most of the civilized world, it would be incorrect to say that it wasn't attacked. Hawaii and Alaska both count as part of the US. Also, U-boats were hanging around the east coast to catch merchant shipping to Britain.
And Tom Lehrer said in a faux-German accent, also as a parody of Herr von Braun: "Once ze rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department."
Slashdot Mirror
(Replying in part to undo my mistaken overrated mod)
If you thought that Comcast's bandwidth restrictions were bad, try NASA's.
Yet you are arguing for less responsibility for the consumer.
I said no such thing. I simply explained that oligopolies have different market dynamics than competitive markets. Quit putting words in my mouth.
You would be incorrect in thinking that someone selling a loss leader to grab market share isn't necessarily long-term viable. For instance, Microsoft lowered the price of a web browser to $0, but could continue to afford to do that long-term because their other businesses could pay for the loss.
I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me?
Here's the explanation you asked for:
1. Oligopolies behave differently than competitive markets. This is because the sellers all to some degree have the ability to have a significant effect on the supply curve. In other words, the supply-demand rules you learned in Econ 101 don't exactly apply.
2. Because of the supply control effects, sellers in an oligopoly often try strategies to switch from being (for example) the number 2 or 3 player to being the number 1 player. These tactics are largely a matter of game theory, but can and do include tactics like selling things at a loss in order to grab market share from a competitor.
The study of oligopolies is one of the hot fields in microeconomics.
Why didn't they get a high-level cleric with the ability to cast Resurrection?
"Well, if firefighters fight fires, and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?"
-George Carlin
Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Here you go:
http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221165049AA62vw5
http://rebel-radius.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-vs-hitler-any-similarities.html
You can use Google to easily find more.
Although grrlscientist's interest in the discussion of dead birds was really to figure out which ones tasted better when barbecued.
Absolutely I prefer him as Bester. But you can't ignore his work as Chekov, since that more-or-less made his career. Plus he got a couple of Saturn awards as Chekov.
Frankly, Bester's greatest moment was when he's sitting down telling Garibaldi exactly what has happened to him. He's so deliciously evil.
Plus if whale song isn't happening for a while, a space probe will come by and wreck everything.
FTFA:
Anton Yelchin's Russian accent in his portrayal of Chekov does get a bit annoying.
What do you expect Yelchin to do with that part, now that Koenig completely immortalized bad accents for Chekov?
Those are definitely 2-wheeled cars, not motorcycles.
In civil law, we use a Common Law system. This is a criminal matter, so Nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law) applies.
Under Common Law, for instance, someone could be tried and punished for something that wasn't codified as a crime in any way.
Libertarianism is at the very least a consistent philosophy.
It shares some key characteristics with conservatism. They both will push for:
- reducing taxes as much as possible
- reducing government regulation of business
- promote private ownership of what are currently at least partially public resources (e.g. roads, schools, or navigable waterways)
Now I will note that all of these issues have to do with economic concerns, and that libertarians generally want no part of the social issues that conservatives will make a big deal of.
Just ask George Washington what he thought of political parties.
He's not giving me any sort of response for some reason. I've tried pounding on the headstone to wake him up, but that doesn't seem to help.
"When they talk about drugs they donâ(TM)t talk about all of them, thatâ(TM)s the problem. They donâ(TM)t mention coffee -- the low end of the speed spectrum, I grant you. But there are coffee freaks. And theyâ(TM)re walking around, nobody worried about it or anything. Mrs. Olsen never tells you about that mild speed lift, you know, because sheâ(TM)s shooting freeze-dried Folgerâ(TM)s."
-George Carlin
will not be televised, but apparently it will be twittered.
You need to be very careful when answering any ad from just about anywhere.
FTFY.
this man can pretty much go to any city on the planet right now, make an excitable announcement, and cause a mass exodus
Somebody please send this guy to Washington D.C. Or at least southern Manhatten.
Luxury. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down at bunker, and pay bunker owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
My reaction to this was similar: We've gone from having in many cases 0 ways to get at these "orphaned" works to having 1 way to get at them. How is that not an improvement? Yes, having 2 or more would be better. But 1 is a heck of a lot better than 0.
Also good would be something similar to what Lessig et al have been arguing for years: if no one is profiting from it, why not put it under CC or into public domain?
Of course we can't. And what's worse, they can fire while cloaked.
Excellent point. It's also not like the USA used this very possibility to go and invade a sovereign country and execute it's leader.
give up their rights 'for their protection'
Otherwise known as being civilized.
No, really. That's what civilized people do is give up a portion of their rights for the protection of knowing that everyone else has given up those rights too. For instance, I've given up my right to shoot you without nasty consequences unless I have a really really good reason. I'm somewhat protected by that because I know that you've also given up that same right, so you're less likely to just open fire for the heck of it. It ain't perfect by any means, but it's a bargain that's often worth making.
The only big net winner in WWII was USA, and that only because the war did not go anywhere near it.
Minor historical point here: While the US was considerably less wrecked than most of the civilized world, it would be incorrect to say that it wasn't attacked. Hawaii and Alaska both count as part of the US. Also, U-boats were hanging around the east coast to catch merchant shipping to Britain.
And Tom Lehrer said in a faux-German accent, also as a parody of Herr von Braun: "Once ze rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department."