You offer some interesting and seemingly valid points even though we differ I think on where the point of enforcement should be. (You've provided me with something to think about)
As for for-profit, I actually meant either for-profit, or organized as a mutual insurance company. Essentially there has to be some benefit to the organizers to make it worthwhile. If the organizers are the members, then you end up with a mutual company which would (you're right) better align the interests of the union.
Had history taken a different course it would have been interesting to see which structure would be favored by labor organizers.
Just to clarify, I meant "positive rights," in the sense of a right that requires the action of another, also called an entitlement. I was making a distinction versus negative rights which do not require counterparties to do any action.
It is the difference between "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you."
And now I'm moving on to more current things that command my attention.
You will note in my original comment that my only focus was whether unions in their current condition qualified as creations of a free market. I was adding this on account of the fact that the parent to my original response made the assertion that they are free market entities.
Indeed, corporations too are not entirely free market entities in consideration of the "corporate veil." However, that wasn't the question I was addressing.
It should be pointed out that Unions in America are not an example of completely free market action. They depend on the government to enforce certain rules via National Labor Relations Board.
There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the employees in such situations to call unions in America a market solution.
I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats).
Unions without government-intervention would work. Instead of the unions we see now, we would find unions organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.
At the same time, the union company's risk and reward would come from providing some degree of insurance (out of union dues) to newly organized employees.
True enough. At 10x book and 70x trailing earnings I'm just being hopeful. I'm not one of those guys who is buoying the price when it falls thirty bucks because all the sudden it's a "deal" in the mind of analysts who have done nothing but heap praise on the stock performance.
On the other hand, maybe it/is/ a deal (an unprecedented one), but it is not one I'd put money on.
I am enjoying the show because the volatility may give me the ability to pick up shares when they dip to a reasonable level.
However, itt will (IMHO) take a lot more bad news and uncertainty before this (great) company's stock is at a valuation commensurate with future cashflows and risks.
True enough. What I meant with my assertion is that Apple has figured out a number of the key things necessary to have a really nice product that operates in a very intuitive manner.
Given that real world situations are resistant to experiment, I can't cite any sources to back up my claim. However, as an iPod owner (1st gen, original battery), I can say that compared to mp3 players then and now (but not necessarily in the future) the iPod is better for I want, and probably for what most people today want.
Because I have no firm basis for this hunch, I am glad that the mods avoided calling the post "informative."
One way to fix this would be to throttle back all current development of the Walkman brand, mp3 players, etc.
Then, select your brightest people and create a division for the sole purpose of developing the next portable consumer entertainment device (not necessarily just a music player. who knows).
Give this division complete autonomy and make bonuses directly reflect market performance of the end product. Emulate a startup within the corporate structure of Sony.
This will only work if the shareholders as a whole were significantly competent to hire competent managers who can accurately identify the talent needed for this division.
I agree that it is double dipping, and I am against the idea; however, I think that this is something that should be between banks and their customers.*
As someone on both the content and the consumer side of the broadband argument, I am also against double dipping on that front. In this case, I think that the major players will be our biggest advocates here. The people who are using the bandwidth (Google, Alexa, etc.), are the same one's with the clout to say no. Together, they have considerable monopsony power. And they do have a common interest in ensuring that rates for internet access are fair.
As people have said before, Google (and their users) would not stand for a tiered internet.
Best, Paul
*lets forget for a moment that banks today are defacto government corporations which changes things a little.
They are clearly stated. You can avoid banks that charge a fee when you use some other bank's ATM, and you can avoid the other charge by the ATM operator by avoiding such ATMs.
No one is getting tricked here. As an aside, as the market for money clears, you find that on the balance, [fees + interest] (aka the price of money) tends to equilibrate.
Just because something takes some extra thinking or is not necessariliy convenient is no reason in my mind to outlaw it.
First of all, I know that you can't do a lot of under-the-radar damage in 4k of code, and I'm sure they audit the programs to ensure they're just games. Additionally, I'm not paranoid enough to think someone would submit malicious code to a game contest.
That said, this is one instance where it would have been nice to be able to play the games as applets in the browser. Note that I am not suggesting that they be submitted (for judgment at least) in this form, as making an applet+application would add some minor but unnecessary overhead to the bytecode; however, it could be a requirement that the entrants also submit an applet version for viewing on the web (inside of the java sandbox), so that guests visiting the site wouldn't have to download and run untrusted code.
Also, it would be much more convenient for us/.ers that way.
It might be stupid for you, but that is exactly why it is great. BECAUSE you don't have to buy it.
People who do value it on the other hand, will buy it. I for example value WOXY.com, a radio-format webcaster of modern rock (and modern rock podcasts). When advertising $$s didn't come through for the new format, I was one of the first to join, because I value the service highly, and I was able to put my money where my mouth had always been.
Now I pay with a (truly minute compared to the value) amount of cash, instead of paying in terms of minutes of ads.
This recalls the discussion we had a while back about online radio. WOXY.com (The Future of Rock and Roll) is also going pay to play.
All of the podcasts of live acts playing in their lounge and also the podcasts of the unsigned band show will be available for download for subscribers, much like the example this article provides.
It looks like the reality has finally hit that nothing is free. At least though, WOXY.com is a good deal. You get the podcasts, and real DJs streaming quality music live over broadband quality streams.
I personally wish everyone the best in their efforts to make entertainment sustainable, independent, and listener supported, both with regard to the new effort via iTunes, and independent groups like WOXY.com who have seen the future of quality entertainment.
Not an Aussie, but as I understand it, these are the toads that you can lick and get a sore throat.
However, Australians have been known to take this species of frog, kill it, dry the skin, and smoke it. This will get you high. See previous anonymous poster's link to erowid.
Slashdot Mirror
You offer some interesting and seemingly valid points even though we differ I think on where the point of enforcement should be. (You've provided me with something to think about)
As for for-profit, I actually meant either for-profit, or organized as a mutual insurance company. Essentially there has to be some benefit to the organizers to make it worthwhile. If the organizers are the members, then you end up with a mutual company which would (you're right) better align the interests of the union.
Had history taken a different course it would have been interesting to see which structure would be favored by labor organizers.
Best,
Paul
Just to clarify, I meant "positive rights," in the sense of a right that requires the action of another, also called an entitlement. I was making a distinction versus negative rights which do not require counterparties to do any action.
It is the difference between "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you."
And now I'm moving on to more current things that command my attention.
You will note in my original comment that my only focus was whether unions in their current condition qualified as creations of a free market. I was adding this on account of the fact that the parent to my original response made the assertion that they are free market entities.
Indeed, corporations too are not entirely free market entities in consideration of the "corporate veil." However, that wasn't the question I was addressing.
Best,
Paul
An interesting question that I can't at the moment find a good answer to. I'll be thinking about it.
I had imagined that such a company would require minimal manpower and that it would all be skilled work... this might not be the case though.
Thanks for the challenge.
Best,
Paul
It should be pointed out that Unions in America are not an example of completely free market action. They depend on the government to enforce certain rules via National Labor Relations Board.
There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the employees in such situations to call unions in America a market solution.
I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats).
Unions without government-intervention would work. Instead of the unions we see now, we would find unions organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.
At the same time, the union company's risk and reward would come from providing some degree of insurance (out of union dues) to newly organized employees.
a thought.
Paul
True enough. At 10x book and 70x trailing earnings I'm just being hopeful. I'm not one of those guys who is buoying the price when it falls thirty bucks because all the sudden it's a "deal" in the mind of analysts who have done nothing but heap praise on the stock performance.
/is/ a deal (an unprecedented one), but it is not one I'd put money on.
On the other hand, maybe it
Best,
Paul
I am enjoying the show because the volatility may give me the ability to pick up shares when they dip to a reasonable level.
However, itt will (IMHO) take a lot more bad news and uncertainty before this (great) company's stock is at a valuation commensurate with future cashflows and risks.
Best,
Paul
True enough. What I meant with my assertion is that Apple has figured out a number of the key things necessary to have a really nice product that operates in a very intuitive manner.
Given that real world situations are resistant to experiment, I can't cite any sources to back up my claim. However, as an iPod owner (1st gen, original battery), I can say that compared to mp3 players then and now (but not necessarily in the future) the iPod is better for I want, and probably for what most people today want.
Because I have no firm basis for this hunch, I am glad that the mods avoided calling the post "informative."
Best,
Paul
To your average iPod buyer, no amount of accessories will make another player as attractive as the iPod.
Might I suggest the BOFH?
One way to fix this would be to throttle back all current development of the Walkman brand, mp3 players, etc.
Then, select your brightest people and create a division for the sole purpose of developing the next portable consumer entertainment device (not necessarily just a music player. who knows).
Give this division complete autonomy and make bonuses directly reflect market performance of the end product. Emulate a startup within the corporate structure of Sony.
This will only work if the shareholders as a whole were significantly competent to hire competent managers who can accurately identify the talent needed for this division.
Best,
Paul
I agree that it is double dipping, and I am against the idea; however, I think that this is something that should be between banks and their customers.*
As someone on both the content and the consumer side of the broadband argument, I am also against double dipping on that front. In this case, I think that the major players will be our biggest advocates here. The people who are using the bandwidth (Google, Alexa, etc.), are the same one's with the clout to say no. Together, they have considerable monopsony power. And they do have a common interest in ensuring that rates for internet access are fair.
As people have said before, Google (and their users) would not stand for a tiered internet.
Best,
Paul
*lets forget for a moment that banks today are defacto government corporations which changes things a little.
With regard to ATMs: Why ban extra usage fees?
They are clearly stated. You can avoid banks that charge a fee when you use some other bank's ATM, and you can avoid the other charge by the ATM operator by avoiding such ATMs.
No one is getting tricked here. As an aside, as the market for money clears, you find that on the balance, [fees + interest] (aka the price of money) tends to equilibrate.
Just because something takes some extra thinking or is not necessariliy convenient is no reason in my mind to outlaw it.
Best,
Paul
First of all, I know that you can't do a lot of under-the-radar damage in 4k of code, and I'm sure they audit the programs to ensure they're just games. Additionally, I'm not paranoid enough to think someone would submit malicious code to a game contest.
/.ers that way.
That said, this is one instance where it would have been nice to be able to play the games as applets in the browser. Note that I am not suggesting that they be submitted (for judgment at least) in this form, as making an applet+application would add some minor but unnecessary overhead to the bytecode; however, it could be a requirement that the entrants also submit an applet version for viewing on the web (inside of the java sandbox), so that guests visiting the site wouldn't have to download and run untrusted code.
Also, it would be much more convenient for us
Best,
Paul
Taxes cause market distortion and deadweight loss.
Video at 11.
Thank you for the interesting and new perspective on the case.
Paul
A more apt classification would have been:
a ckberries dept.
From the the-department-of-justice-shant-be-deprived-of-bl
It will be a struggle. You should check out their appeal on the main page. See my sig.
It's still an amazing station, and their plan will be even closer to working with your help.
Best,
Paul
It might be stupid for you, but that is exactly why it is great. BECAUSE you don't have to buy it.
People who do value it on the other hand, will buy it. I for example value WOXY.com, a radio-format webcaster of modern rock (and modern rock podcasts). When advertising $$s didn't come through for the new format, I was one of the first to join, because I value the service highly, and I was able to put my money where my mouth had always been.
Now I pay with a (truly minute compared to the value) amount of cash, instead of paying in terms of minutes of ads.
TANSTAAFL,
Paul
This recalls the discussion we had a while back about online radio. WOXY.com (The Future of Rock and Roll) is also going pay to play.
All of the podcasts of live acts playing in their lounge and also the podcasts of the unsigned band show will be available for download for subscribers, much like the example this article provides.
It looks like the reality has finally hit that nothing is free. At least though, WOXY.com is a good deal. You get the podcasts, and real DJs streaming quality music live over broadband quality streams.
I personally wish everyone the best in their efforts to make entertainment sustainable, independent, and listener supported, both with regard to the new effort via iTunes, and independent groups like WOXY.com who have seen the future of quality entertainment.
Best,
Paul Henrich
Mod Parent Down!!!!!!
Wow. I can be really stupid. I hit preview and still managed to post something blatantly wrong.
s/frog/toad
Best,
Paul
Not an Aussie, but as I understand it, these are the toads that you can lick and get a sore throat.
However, Australians have been known to take this species of frog, kill it, dry the skin, and smoke it. This will get you high. See previous anonymous poster's link to erowid.
Best,
Paul
I don't really care to find the attribution for this, but:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Just food for thought.
Well, fashionfirst, score-of-zero, I read your comment. The moderation system creates a nice filter for the casual reader.
However, when people see a comment they are really interested in they often will dig down and read the whole thread of conversation that it prompted.
Best,
Paul