The fact is...an item will be priced to maximize revenue.
In a systemic sense, your sentence is correct. But in terms of firm strategy, it's not always correct to phrase it the way you did.
In a perfect competition, all firms are price-takers: they cannot set the price on their own, and whatever aggregate supply and demand set as the price they will have to sell at. Any higher or any lower and they will not be maximizing their revenue. But note that this revenue maximizing strategy is passive.
In a monopoly (or coordinated oligopoly) situation, the firm is a price-setter. Because there are no other substitutes or effective competition, the monopoly firm can raise prices (to a certain degree) above supply and demand. This is a revenue maximization strategy, which relies on not meeting supply and demand, because the firm doesn't have to. It can get more revenue by raising the price and undersupplying the market--this is a revenue maximization strategy, but unlike the above strategy in perfect competition, it's active instead of passive (firm driven rather than market driven).
So when you equate the "supply and demand" option with the "revenue maximization" option, what you're really doing is assuming s pricing strategy within a perfect competition market. As we know, many software markets are not perfectly competitive with substitute goods available made by rival firms--many are oligopolistic or monopolistic in terms of their market dominance (Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc). Revenue maximization for these firms has less to do with meeting supply and demand because their control over the supply in the market is price-setting not price-taking.
I'll throw in a third for the DragonLance series. Picking up the collection of DragonLance Chronicles was the first time I enjoyed reading as a child, and the first time I read a seriously long book (three books really) -- 1000+ pages. If I hadn't started on DragonLance, I'm not sure when I would have started reading for pleasure.
armed assailants killing innocent grandmothers in their bedrooms...
Actually the scenario you describe happened a couple months ago in Baltimore right next to the Johns Hopkins campus.
A thief had apparently been casing a house about two blocks off the southern end of JHU's main campus where a woman in her seventies lived alone. When they broke in they thought she'd be gone, but she was there in her bedroom. They stabbed her to death.
I think they're just dropping links from/. now, because I copied the link into the address bar and the page loaded, although some of the images aren't coming up.
Comparing pledges against raw population I think is misleading. 1) Pledges don't reflect the actual download numbers, and 2) In many countries, the internet-using % of the population is actually quite low due to poverty.
A better gauge of Firefox's penetration would be to look at actual downloads against number of internet users in a given country.
I, for one, am tremendously unhappy with this kind of temporal data plan recursion. Even if it is innovative, infinite pricing schemes relying on iterations of the present I find to be unacceptable!
The emphasis in my post is on practical results, differentiating the military from other institutions by its consistent focus on mass implementation rather than simply research. Notwithstanding the immense research and development budget controlled by the various military and defense institutions in the U.S., the other agencies you cite are focus principally on research, statutory and regulatory law change, and expert-level implementation of their various advances.
This is in contrast to the military, whose social and technological innovations require propagation en masse, either throughout military society (which then has knock-on effects to the rest of society) or on a mass usability basis (universal communication frameworks or mass produced technology available to the individual enlisted man or woman on the front).
Because the military's focus is on the logic of necessity and the logic of life-and-death, they are often more able than other agencies to cut through the Gordian knot of domestic political factions, ideologies, and interests. For example, this allowed them to justify racial integration well ahead of most public and private institutions in U.S. history, despite prevailing political conflicts and racist ideologies.
So while DoE does energy research and proof-of-concept designs, the military makes the practical push to make alternative energy use a reality, in part because they are driven by a logic of necessity, and in part because they are perceived as less political than the DoE. Similarly, the CDC does a tremendous amount of research on vaccinations, cures, and epidemiological health policy. On the other hand, the military makes the practical push to get easy-to-administer, cheap-to-mass-produce vaccines and treatments available, because they're necessary to the strategic logic of warfare--witness the history of penicillin for example.
The military certainly is no substitute for the other organizations that you cite. But in terms of practical effect on a mass scale, the military is more often than not on the leading edge.
You sound like a lot of the scary fin de siècle German political theorists that I have to read for my poli-sci Ph.D. studies. Calm down--we all know how that story ended.
You're right. The Bush Administration has had plans from before 9/11 to pour vast sums of money into actuarial and accounting schools through a secret CIA slush fund operating in various former Eastern bloc countries.
Not really. The post you link to describes the defense budget as it dwarfs other spending, but doesn't really argue why or why not that spending is progressive/regressive.
The military was one of the first racially integrated public institutions in the U.S., it researched and funded the Internet, it's pouring money into synthetic fuels right now, and it's pushing the limits of computing power as seen in this article. There are numerous other scientific and social areas in which the military advances society, with far more practical results than do-gooders in other government or public institutions.
What exactly would the military use a supercomputer for?
The military will use this advanced technology to assist and perhaps automate the RTFA process, also known as Reading The Fucking Article, which would allow you to answer your query without posting.
Military taking the lead on computing as usual.
Why is the military so much more progressive (with practical results) than any other institution of government?
It will be used principally to solve classified military problems to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons will continue to work correctly as they age. The Roadrunner will simulate the behavior of the weapons in the first fraction of a second during an explosion. Before it is placed in a classified environment, it will also be used to explore scientific problems like climate change.
So, it also has Cell-based processors AND Opterons. I wonder what the functional division between the two chip types is?
"If Chevy wins the Daytona 500, they try to convince you the Chevy Malibu you're driving will benefit from this," said Steve Wallach, a supercomputer designer who is chief scientist of Convey Computer, a start-up firm based in Richardson, Tex. Those who work with weapons might not have much to offer the video gamers of the world, he suggested.
Apple is rebranding "OS X" in conjunction with the release of the 3G iPhone (or 2G, if you prefer iPod terms instead of cell network terms), something which has been intimated with every discussion of the iPhone's current OS as "running OS X", rather than running "Mac OS X". It may also have something to do with these "electric computers" that are streaming into the country at an astounding rate (which are likely the new iPhones, but who knows? Apple is very, very sneaky.).
This is pretty close to what I think the reason behind a "performance and security"-only release of OS X is about. People here seems to be complaining about the implications for their desktops--people who still have perfectly serviceable G4s and G5s would be mightily upset if the next latest and greatest is not available for them.
However, a great deal of Apple's revenue and business is now tied up in iPhones and iPod Touch, both of which run OS X. Doubtless, Apple is facing up to the extremely different operating requirements that these devices place on their operating system. They've already switched processor architecture from PPC to Intel specifically due to Intel's roadmap for low energy processors. They acquired another chip engineering company that specialized in low energy chips just so that they could get ahold of their expertise.
Now they're focusing on a revision of their OS that 1) focuses on performance and security, and 2) contains no major new features -- or so the rumors say. These two aspects point to a focus on making the OS better suited for Apple's non-desktop devices. Mobile is huge for them: laptops are one area where they have a very respectable marketshare, plus iPhones and iPod touch have even greater demands for performance in low energy conditions.
Just like the 10.1 release that was free, introduced no major features, and focused on performance and stability, 10.6 looks to repeat the same strategy (although it probably won't be free, it also probably won't cost the full $129 price). Even if it is Intel-only, PPC users will not be missing out on any new features, just a nebulous feeling of things being 'snappier' on Intel machines. It's likely that Apple would extend support for 10.5 beyond the normal time-period, just to make sure the PPC folks don't feel too abandoned.
Of course, that's exactly what's going on: PPC is being abandoned and Carbon is one step closer to being excised from the OS. Everything's getting wrapped in Cocoa and the transition to Intel is being pushed a little harder--developers and buyers are being signaled by this release to start making the shift decisive, if they haven't already. Jobs has made similar pushes in the past, for example declaring Classic dead by placing it in a coffin onstage.
People complaining about their PPC desktop are missing the point: this release is driven by Apple's mobile market. Laptops, iPhone, and iPod touch demand a release that is optimized, high performance, low energy, and smaller footprint.
Unless Obama has recently contracted downs syndrome, Edwards will not be VP. First, Edwards was intimately linked to the epic failure that was the Kerry run for the presidency. Kerry-Edwards could not unseat the least popular president in U.S. history. If Obama wants to appear as the second-go-round of that failboat, then I guess he'll have to choose Edwards. Second, Edwards was brutalized by Dick Cheney during the VP debate. The slick lawyer who's young and energetic LOST numerous points (if not the whole debate) to a man who has negative charisma.
Edwards would be just as idiotic a choice for VP as Hillary. If Obama really is allabout change, he will pick someone new.
Well, in the UK you have a higher cost of living, as Macbooks cost £700, or about $1400, whereas in the U.S. we only pay $1100 for a new Macbook.
If you earn £500/day, that's approximately a yearly salary of ~£130,000. In the U.S., that's a salary of $260,000.
Excuse me, but you can get off your high fucking horse you rich twat. Normal people, who make less than $100,000 a year, can't just blow $1000 on a laptop whenever they want.
Take your snide, schadenfreude, condescension about the U.S. economy elsewhere.
Try upping the number of columns, using only numbers, use close spacing, and reduce the text size.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Without a comparative study of zebra-striping arrayed amongst various other text formatting methods, there's no way to differentiate how zebra striping may help in one context versus another. After all, not all layouts are made equal.
Just off the top of my head, I would consider line-height to be another key factor in data readability along rows. But not all layouts can accommodate a high line-height. The designer may then choose to use zebra striping as a second-best option, given space constraints imposed by the design.
I wonder who the "peers" doing the reviewing actually were, and if any of them were schooled in methodology/research design?
Slashdot Mirror
In a systemic sense, your sentence is correct. But in terms of firm strategy, it's not always correct to phrase it the way you did.
In a perfect competition, all firms are price-takers: they cannot set the price on their own, and whatever aggregate supply and demand set as the price they will have to sell at. Any higher or any lower and they will not be maximizing their revenue. But note that this revenue maximizing strategy is passive.
In a monopoly (or coordinated oligopoly) situation, the firm is a price-setter. Because there are no other substitutes or effective competition, the monopoly firm can raise prices (to a certain degree) above supply and demand. This is a revenue maximization strategy, which relies on not meeting supply and demand, because the firm doesn't have to. It can get more revenue by raising the price and undersupplying the market--this is a revenue maximization strategy, but unlike the above strategy in perfect competition, it's active instead of passive (firm driven rather than market driven).
So when you equate the "supply and demand" option with the "revenue maximization" option, what you're really doing is assuming s pricing strategy within a perfect competition market. As we know, many software markets are not perfectly competitive with substitute goods available made by rival firms--many are oligopolistic or monopolistic in terms of their market dominance (Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc). Revenue maximization for these firms has less to do with meeting supply and demand because their control over the supply in the market is price-setting not price-taking.
Yeah, but there are at least some, right?
ALL THESE [languages] ARE YOURS EXCEPT [python]. ATTEMPT NO [hello world] THERE.
Dell and Lenovo make profit from small margins but high volume. Apple does the opposite.
Nota bene: it's the "Queensbridge Ghetto" Hip-Hop scene. That's east coast, not west coast.
I'll throw in a third for the DragonLance series. Picking up the collection of DragonLance Chronicles was the first time I enjoyed reading as a child, and the first time I read a seriously long book (three books really) -- 1000+ pages. If I hadn't started on DragonLance, I'm not sure when I would have started reading for pleasure.
Actually, I much prefer Illmatic. Don't know what the rest of you are on about...
Actually the scenario you describe happened a couple months ago in Baltimore right next to the Johns Hopkins campus.
A thief had apparently been casing a house about two blocks off the southern end of JHU's main campus where a woman in her seventies lived alone. When they broke in they thought she'd be gone, but she was there in her bedroom. They stabbed her to death.
News article:
http://wjz.com/local/release.suspect.sketch.2.724024.html
I think they're just dropping links from /. now, because I copied the link into the address bar and the page loaded, although some of the images aren't coming up.
In any case, coral cache has the full version, images and all.
That's no moon...
Comparing pledges against raw population I think is misleading. 1) Pledges don't reflect the actual download numbers, and 2) In many countries, the internet-using % of the population is actually quite low due to poverty.
A better gauge of Firefox's penetration would be to look at actual downloads against number of internet users in a given country.
I, for one, am tremendously unhappy with this kind of temporal data plan recursion. Even if it is innovative, infinite pricing schemes relying on iterations of the present I find to be unacceptable!
The emphasis in my post is on practical results, differentiating the military from other institutions by its consistent focus on mass implementation rather than simply research. Notwithstanding the immense research and development budget controlled by the various military and defense institutions in the U.S., the other agencies you cite are focus principally on research, statutory and regulatory law change, and expert-level implementation of their various advances.
This is in contrast to the military, whose social and technological innovations require propagation en masse, either throughout military society (which then has knock-on effects to the rest of society) or on a mass usability basis (universal communication frameworks or mass produced technology available to the individual enlisted man or woman on the front).
Because the military's focus is on the logic of necessity and the logic of life-and-death, they are often more able than other agencies to cut through the Gordian knot of domestic political factions, ideologies, and interests. For example, this allowed them to justify racial integration well ahead of most public and private institutions in U.S. history, despite prevailing political conflicts and racist ideologies.
So while DoE does energy research and proof-of-concept designs, the military makes the practical push to make alternative energy use a reality, in part because they are driven by a logic of necessity, and in part because they are perceived as less political than the DoE. Similarly, the CDC does a tremendous amount of research on vaccinations, cures, and epidemiological health policy. On the other hand, the military makes the practical push to get easy-to-administer, cheap-to-mass-produce vaccines and treatments available, because they're necessary to the strategic logic of warfare--witness the history of penicillin for example.
The military certainly is no substitute for the other organizations that you cite. But in terms of practical effect on a mass scale, the military is more often than not on the leading edge.
You sound like a lot of the scary fin de siècle German political theorists that I have to read for my poli-sci Ph.D. studies. Calm down--we all know how that story ended.
You're right. The Bush Administration has had plans from before 9/11 to pour vast sums of money into actuarial and accounting schools through a secret CIA slush fund operating in various former Eastern bloc countries.
Are you really arguing that the scientific and social advances from the military arise from secret prisons and lack of moral qualms?
Not really. The post you link to describes the defense budget as it dwarfs other spending, but doesn't really argue why or why not that spending is progressive/regressive.
The military was one of the first racially integrated public institutions in the U.S., it researched and funded the Internet, it's pouring money into synthetic fuels right now, and it's pushing the limits of computing power as seen in this article. There are numerous other scientific and social areas in which the military advances society, with far more practical results than do-gooders in other government or public institutions.
The military will use this advanced technology to assist and perhaps automate the RTFA process, also known as Reading The Fucking Article, which would allow you to answer your query without posting.
Who cares? It's awesome sui generis.
This is pretty close to what I think the reason behind a "performance and security"-only release of OS X is about. People here seems to be complaining about the implications for their desktops--people who still have perfectly serviceable G4s and G5s would be mightily upset if the next latest and greatest is not available for them.
However, a great deal of Apple's revenue and business is now tied up in iPhones and iPod Touch, both of which run OS X. Doubtless, Apple is facing up to the extremely different operating requirements that these devices place on their operating system. They've already switched processor architecture from PPC to Intel specifically due to Intel's roadmap for low energy processors. They acquired another chip engineering company that specialized in low energy chips just so that they could get ahold of their expertise.
Now they're focusing on a revision of their OS that 1) focuses on performance and security, and 2) contains no major new features -- or so the rumors say. These two aspects point to a focus on making the OS better suited for Apple's non-desktop devices. Mobile is huge for them: laptops are one area where they have a very respectable marketshare, plus iPhones and iPod touch have even greater demands for performance in low energy conditions.
Just like the 10.1 release that was free, introduced no major features, and focused on performance and stability, 10.6 looks to repeat the same strategy (although it probably won't be free, it also probably won't cost the full $129 price). Even if it is Intel-only, PPC users will not be missing out on any new features, just a nebulous feeling of things being 'snappier' on Intel machines. It's likely that Apple would extend support for 10.5 beyond the normal time-period, just to make sure the PPC folks don't feel too abandoned.
Of course, that's exactly what's going on: PPC is being abandoned and Carbon is one step closer to being excised from the OS. Everything's getting wrapped in Cocoa and the transition to Intel is being pushed a little harder--developers and buyers are being signaled by this release to start making the shift decisive, if they haven't already. Jobs has made similar pushes in the past, for example declaring Classic dead by placing it in a coffin onstage.
People complaining about their PPC desktop are missing the point: this release is driven by Apple's mobile market. Laptops, iPhone, and iPod touch demand a release that is optimized, high performance, low energy, and smaller footprint.
Unless Obama has recently contracted downs syndrome, Edwards will not be VP. First, Edwards was intimately linked to the epic failure that was the Kerry run for the presidency. Kerry-Edwards could not unseat the least popular president in U.S. history. If Obama wants to appear as the second-go-round of that failboat, then I guess he'll have to choose Edwards. Second, Edwards was brutalized by Dick Cheney during the VP debate. The slick lawyer who's young and energetic LOST numerous points (if not the whole debate) to a man who has negative charisma.
Edwards would be just as idiotic a choice for VP as Hillary. If Obama really is allabout change, he will pick someone new.
Well, in the UK you have a higher cost of living, as Macbooks cost £700, or about $1400, whereas in the U.S. we only pay $1100 for a new Macbook.
If you earn £500/day, that's approximately a yearly salary of ~£130,000. In the U.S., that's a salary of $260,000.
Excuse me, but you can get off your high fucking horse you rich twat. Normal people, who make less than $100,000 a year, can't just blow $1000 on a laptop whenever they want.
Take your snide, schadenfreude, condescension about the U.S. economy elsewhere.
Yeah, but who has the UID:666,666?
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Without a comparative study of zebra-striping arrayed amongst various other text formatting methods, there's no way to differentiate how zebra striping may help in one context versus another. After all, not all layouts are made equal.
Just off the top of my head, I would consider line-height to be another key factor in data readability along rows. But not all layouts can accommodate a high line-height. The designer may then choose to use zebra striping as a second-best option, given space constraints imposed by the design.
I wonder who the "peers" doing the reviewing actually were, and if any of them were schooled in methodology/research design?