Simple: if you want to use the $0.05/song service you have to upload some MB when someone buys a song you have. If you don't have a fat pipe you pay $0.25/song. What if you don't upload enough? Come up with a surcharge from Apple that makes up for the $0.20 windfall.
Your exactly right. They confuse an economy of scale with supply and demand. An economy of scale is when you double inputs but outputs grow by more than double. I don't see price or demand or supply anywhere in there, unless they have muddled the definition.
Pearlman said that Pfohl misunderstood the idea. Then again, another record-industry type, casually speaking to Pearlman after the talk, had perhaps the most succinct counter suggestion. Why not charge 10 cents, instead of 5, and double the revenue?
This view of supply and demand is covered in the MONOPOLY MARKET section of my Microeconomics 101 text.
The regulatory offices are included in the budget and they total around 29billion worth of spending. However, they usually levy enough fines to pay for themselves and then some. If you look at the federal income statement there is a section for revenues from regulations (though they don't explicitly call it that). Pretty much, it suppliments your tax dollers for such programs so that beurocrats (non-elected officials) can spend more.
The whole idea of regulations, while necessary because corporations always try to defeat them, are kind of circular. We are paying to protect ourselves...from ourselves!
A 16-year Microsoft veteran, Lucovsky was one of a handful of "Distinguished Engineers" at Microsoft. He is credited as one of the core dozen engineers that came from Digital Equipment Corp. to Microsoft and built the Windows NT operating system. He was charged with building the Windows NT executive, kernel, Win32 run-time and other key elements of the operating system. NT was the precursor to Windows Server.
Windows NT: thank god he's not from the Darkside of the Force...
At home I downloaded 1.01, but on my laptop I'm still using 1.0. My dot on my laptop was blue until I clicked on it. As of now, the process still has to be initiated by the user.
I believe that the most compelling argument made in the actual brief (the first link) is,
"Second, amici address assertions that checking for
infringement should be built into network design. On the
contrary, certain functionality (such as using filters)
should not be done at the network level. To order network
designers to add functionality to the network to avoid
liability is to force significant inefficiency into network
design. Because leaving out such functionality may represent
good engineering design, no negative inference
regarding intent should be drawn if a designer chooses not
to add this functionality."
I was pointed there by Ed Felton in a response post on the brief's abstract page on Freedom to Tinker,
"I'm curious what you think of the corresponding section of the brief (Section II, starting on page 6), which makes the argument at much greater length."
I love getting some free Ivy League insight (as an aside, I go to Rutgers where we are always using information from our Ivy League friends).
Joining the celebration is Baskin Robbins, which is serving up a free scoop of ice cream in honor of the day Yahoo began climbing the ranks from its humble beginning.
If your going to link just the name Baskin Robbins, shouldn't that go to their corporate site for more information about the company? Should the article not be linked to the "...serving up a free scoop of ice cream..." part? There should be a standard, where you link articles to the verb and nouns are used for clarification.
this is my gripe with the statistic, its biased. We're not arguing against eachother, we're arguing different points next to eachother. The problem is that the average (non-slashdot) reader is not going to be able to pick out the statistical bias.
If they consistantly include the cost of the OS license then it would skew the figures towards more dollar sales for MS products which steeply ramp up the cost as blades/CPUs are added.
Activant doesn't charge for support when you purchase one of their solutions. I'm sure that they factor it into the cost of the system, but there is no "per-call" cost.
The girl in the ESlate pictures does not look like she goes to a public school in Kenya. This is a nice score for Linux, but I think the title should read: "Kenyan Fifth-Graders from Well-To-Do Families recieve ESlates"
The business that I'm currently developing a web site for just got a snazzy new POS/Inventory Management/Client Accessible DB/Payroll/Kitchen Sink solution from Activant.They are running UNIX on the back end with familiar Windows machines for the POS machines. Do you need someone on-site that knows UNIX? Not at all, they can diagnose and fix most problems from their headquarters in California. I could see these highly polished, well integrated systems becoming a must-have for small business. Way to go UNIX, way to go Activant for making a strong OS decision.
P.S. I don't own any Activant stock (if they are even public). Also, I do have a gripe with their lack easy to find web integration information for their seemingly home-rolled database, "Eagle."
Slashdot Mirror
In the article he says that Circuit City employees make comission, they don't.
Anyone who has seen The Holy Grail knows that taunting is quite an effective strategy in France.
*ducking* - don't hit me
Guess what? *YOUR* air cooled too! scary eh?
vapid (vpd, vpd)adj. 1. Lacking liveliness, animation, or interest; dull: vapid conversation. 2. Lacking taste, zest, or flavor; flat: vapid beer.
Heh...It sounds like those fake romance fan fiction things where Luke falls in love with a Wookie.
Simple: if you want to use the $0.05/song service you have to upload some MB when someone buys a song you have. If you don't have a fat pipe you pay $0.25/song. What if you don't upload enough? Come up with a surcharge from Apple that makes up for the $0.20 windfall.
Your exactly right. They confuse an economy of scale with supply and demand. An economy of scale is when you double inputs but outputs grow by more than double. I don't see price or demand or supply anywhere in there, unless they have muddled the definition.
This view of supply and demand is covered in the MONOPOLY MARKET section of my Microeconomics 101 text.
I can't believe Linus would say that combination of words!
The whole idea of regulations, while necessary because corporations always try to defeat them, are kind of circular. We are paying to protect ourselves...from ourselves!
Wow, your name is no lie, you certaintly are "Eternally Optimistic!"
Windows NT: thank god he's not from the Darkside of the Force...
At home I downloaded 1.01, but on my laptop I'm still using 1.0. My dot on my laptop was blue until I clicked on it. As of now, the process still has to be initiated by the user.
Neither has Firefox Update...Yet
I was pointed there by Ed Felton in a response post on the brief's abstract page on Freedom to Tinker,
I love getting some free Ivy League insight (as an aside, I go to Rutgers where we are always using information from our Ivy League friends).
this is my gripe with the statistic, its biased. We're not arguing against eachother, we're arguing different points next to eachother. The problem is that the average (non-slashdot) reader is not going to be able to pick out the statistical bias.
good one!
Point taken and sig. changed.
If they consistantly include the cost of the OS license then it would skew the figures towards more dollar sales for MS products which steeply ramp up the cost as blades/CPUs are added.
As an aside, the public school in the town next to mine is trying to start giving out Free Laptops to all of its High School students. Its great to see technology being introduced in schools.
I wonder if that figure includes software licenses, or if it is just for the server hardware.
P.S. I don't own any Activant stock (if they are even public). Also, I do have a gripe with their lack easy to find web integration information for their seemingly home-rolled database, "Eagle."