I've seen this nonsense crop up more often lately. Yes, the price is whatever the market will bear. But assuming the government keeps a lid on cartel behavior the price the market ends up bearing will be lower as costs are reduced. If you don't think that will happen you should invest all your savings in trucking companies as soon as automated trucks clear the last regulatory hurdles.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply we got involved in the interest of helping other people. But we do get involved in their little wars and political machinations.
Ron Paul is correct, sort of. The problem is there are points at which intervention now is going to save a much bigger intervention later. Kuwait in 1991 may have been one of those inflections, maybe not. Everything else flowed from that invasion.
There is more than JUST luck, but luck is required.
I don't see any evidence this is true. I know multimillionaires who didn't get any more or less lucky than average. The difference between them and me (definitely not a multimillionaire) is the spent their 20s and 30s living on someone's couch, working 20 hours a day, and failing over and over until they figured out what you need to do to start a successful business. Most successful businessmen have a few BKs under their belt, and it wouldn't have been surprising if Tesla had failed and Musk still ended up a billionaire.
It may be you have to get lucky to be Elon Musk rich, but I wouldn't bet money on it either.
Well, that may be true, but for the time being we do have draconian copyright laws, and the copyright holders are well within their rights to have unauthorized copies taken down. Whether or not the legal environment make sense is another question.
But in doing trying to do so, the labels will do harm to the artists they represent, and shoot themselves in the foot for acquiring future customers by getting rid of several major sources of music discovery.
I'm pretty sure the labels only worry about the artists when their own interests aren't involved. You're right about the music discovery, but from a label's perspective discovery is only worthwhile if it leads to a sale. If people just listen to youtube whenever they have the itch to hear a song without ever buying the track, that looks a lot like parasitism to the people who produced it.
Traditionally the labels did a few things for you: Marketing, production, advances, and shelf space. By "shelf space" I mean getting your album in to record stores, which was a bit of rent seeking you really couldn't get around as an artist.
Today you can do your own marketing, borrow money, and control over shelf space is a commodity of dwindling (if not entirely nonexistent) value. But record labels can still add value by bringing together the facilities and technical expertise you need to make professional-quality music. I think they make way too much money for this service based almost purely on inertia, but that's likely to change.
It's a fun lifestyle. I don't have time for some woman who needs constant attention, wants to do things I have no interest in, needs things buying for her so she can feel loved. The reward simply isn't worth the time and money you have to invest.
That's really what it boils down to for me. Women go through a sexual "rock star" period in their 20s which leads them to expect every waking moment of a man's time. Sex is great, but it's not that great, and I don't see that modern women bring much else to the table.
The most likely outcome is they will cut flights to deal with the drop in passengers and charge more to make up for lost revenue. They may be able to charge a premium since flying is faster, though not inordinately so once you factor in the security circus.
Much of an airline's expenses are relatively fixed - fuel, landing fees, taxes. Lowering prices may simply not be an option. It's not a very profitable business to start with - there have been analyses over the years which show while there are occasional good times, when you add up all the profits and all the losses you end up with a negative number, i.e. the industry as a whole has lost money.
There's a difference between "idiot radicals" who annoy you and "idiot radicals" who're willing to murder complete strangers. Can we stop pretending there's no correlation between mass killing and Islam?
This is for super-long-range sniper fire. Criminals don't have any need for this kind of weapon - when the mob wants to assassinate you they put a gun right up against your mellon and empty the magazine.
Worse yet, PC's today are barely faster than 5 year old ones at similar price points. Moore's law ran headlong into a thermal brick wall.
That's not really true. Design rules are still shrinking at about the same rate they always did. Moore's law, after all, is about transistors and not speed. Chip makers can certainly use that extra real estate to add cores and dedicated hardware for things like video processing.
But the real problem (from Intel and Microsoft's perspective) is far more pernicious. Five year old hardware is good enough for 99% of people who need a PC. If all I'm doing is commenting on Facebook, watching Netflix movies, and doing my taxes there isn't any reason to replace my old hardware. I'm sure that's a big part of the attraction for the chip makers - they'd love to force everyone to buy new hardware in order to watch videos.
No, it just means it will get phased in over time as old PCs die and are replaced, and there's nothing new to buy except what supports this scheme.
But then they have a chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody is going to make sure to buy a PC with the DRM hardware if they can get the content without it. Nobody is going to produce content exclusively for DRM'd hardware if market penetration of that hardware isn't more than a tiny blip. And consumers aren't going to wait five years for the industry to get its shit together and produce a system that works transparently for authorized users.
One of three things is going to happen: Tools to strip the stream of DRM will become ubiquitous, the scheme will die from lack of adoption, or Microsoft will succeed in prompting a mass move off of the PC platform, thereby finishing the process (started with Windows 8) of slitting its own throat.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen this nonsense crop up more often lately. Yes, the price is whatever the market will bear. But assuming the government keeps a lid on cartel behavior the price the market ends up bearing will be lower as costs are reduced. If you don't think that will happen you should invest all your savings in trucking companies as soon as automated trucks clear the last regulatory hurdles.
Yeah! Smash those looms!
Nope. The reason for the punishment is to satisfy our society's notion of justice. I don't give two shits whether it makes other Jihadis happy or not.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply we got involved in the interest of helping other people. But we do get involved in their little wars and political machinations.
Ron Paul is correct, sort of. The problem is there are points at which intervention now is going to save a much bigger intervention later. Kuwait in 1991 may have been one of those inflections, maybe not. Everything else flowed from that invasion.
Not really. The problem is we get involved in other peoples' problems.
Not really interested in what they think.
I don't see any evidence this is true. I know multimillionaires who didn't get any more or less lucky than average. The difference between them and me (definitely not a multimillionaire) is the spent their 20s and 30s living on someone's couch, working 20 hours a day, and failing over and over until they figured out what you need to do to start a successful business. Most successful businessmen have a few BKs under their belt, and it wouldn't have been surprising if Tesla had failed and Musk still ended up a billionaire.
It may be you have to get lucky to be Elon Musk rich, but I wouldn't bet money on it either.
Well, that may be true, but for the time being we do have draconian copyright laws, and the copyright holders are well within their rights to have unauthorized copies taken down. Whether or not the legal environment make sense is another question.
I'm pretty sure the labels only worry about the artists when their own interests aren't involved. You're right about the music discovery, but from a label's perspective discovery is only worthwhile if it leads to a sale. If people just listen to youtube whenever they have the itch to hear a song without ever buying the track, that looks a lot like parasitism to the people who produced it.
Traditionally the labels did a few things for you: Marketing, production, advances, and shelf space. By "shelf space" I mean getting your album in to record stores, which was a bit of rent seeking you really couldn't get around as an artist.
Today you can do your own marketing, borrow money, and control over shelf space is a commodity of dwindling (if not entirely nonexistent) value. But record labels can still add value by bringing together the facilities and technical expertise you need to make professional-quality music. I think they make way too much money for this service based almost purely on inertia, but that's likely to change.
"Plaque", not "plague". An artery blocked with plague sounds very scary.
That's not what's happening here. They have a problem in the "simple device" they're trying to deal with.
It even forms biofilms.
I'm jealous.
That's really what it boils down to for me. Women go through a sexual "rock star" period in their 20s which leads them to expect every waking moment of a man's time. Sex is great, but it's not that great, and I don't see that modern women bring much else to the table.
Right now fuel is cheap, and fuel is on the order of 50% of flight cost. That can't last forever, though.
The most likely outcome is they will cut flights to deal with the drop in passengers and charge more to make up for lost revenue. They may be able to charge a premium since flying is faster, though not inordinately so once you factor in the security circus.
Much of an airline's expenses are relatively fixed - fuel, landing fees, taxes. Lowering prices may simply not be an option. It's not a very profitable business to start with - there have been analyses over the years which show while there are occasional good times, when you add up all the profits and all the losses you end up with a negative number, i.e. the industry as a whole has lost money.
At that price we could put the money into a giant trust and hire limousines to drive people to their destinations.
You're not the first to notice.
There's a difference between "idiot radicals" who annoy you and "idiot radicals" who're willing to murder complete strangers. Can we stop pretending there's no correlation between mass killing and Islam?
You'll get signs and yelling. You won't get assassins.
Stop trying to draw parallels where none exist.
This is for super-long-range sniper fire. Criminals don't have any need for this kind of weapon - when the mob wants to assassinate you they put a gun right up against your mellon and empty the magazine.
Dateline 2015: Scientists finally decode honeybee "dance" language. First message recorded:
"Man, I'm really jonesing for some of that nicotine-laced nectar. Can you watch the hive for a bit while I take a break? I'm gettin' the shakes."
If the volume goes that low they're going to cost $2500 again, though.
That's not really true. Design rules are still shrinking at about the same rate they always did. Moore's law, after all, is about transistors and not speed. Chip makers can certainly use that extra real estate to add cores and dedicated hardware for things like video processing.
But the real problem (from Intel and Microsoft's perspective) is far more pernicious. Five year old hardware is good enough for 99% of people who need a PC. If all I'm doing is commenting on Facebook, watching Netflix movies, and doing my taxes there isn't any reason to replace my old hardware. I'm sure that's a big part of the attraction for the chip makers - they'd love to force everyone to buy new hardware in order to watch videos.
But then they have a chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody is going to make sure to buy a PC with the DRM hardware if they can get the content without it. Nobody is going to produce content exclusively for DRM'd hardware if market penetration of that hardware isn't more than a tiny blip. And consumers aren't going to wait five years for the industry to get its shit together and produce a system that works transparently for authorized users.
One of three things is going to happen: Tools to strip the stream of DRM will become ubiquitous, the scheme will die from lack of adoption, or Microsoft will succeed in prompting a mass move off of the PC platform, thereby finishing the process (started with Windows 8) of slitting its own throat.